I haven't checked with an inflation calculator to get the exact numbers, but I would assume that $1 a gallon gas in 1979 probably is close to what we are paying today in 2008 dollars.
Pretty close. $1.00 in 1979 is the equivalent to $3.15 in 2007 dollars. Interestingly though, back in 1979, or at least the later portion of it, people were scrambling to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Chrysler dumped all of its big blocks for 1979, while Ford dropped the 460 from cars, leaving just a 400 big-block to power the Lincolns. And GM was working to pare the big 400 and 403 V-8s from some of their car lines, leaving just the 350 engines as the top choice. By 1980 those 400/403's would be gone entirely. The automotive landscape was changing, very rapidly, because of that $1.00 per gallon gasoline.
Honestly, I think we're weathering this ~$3.00/gal gas better today than we did the $1.00 gas back in 1979/1980. But then, fuel economy has improved tremendously since then, so filling up a 2008 Malibu won't be as painful as filling up a 1980 Malibu. And we're also not stuck with 15% mortgages, either! And the gas stations aren't rationing fuel and running out.
The Suburban and the van both have 30 gallon gas tanks, and they both get about 15 mpg.
That means even if they're only putting 12,000 miles per year on each vehicle, they're filling those tanks every 2 weeks. 60 gallons @ $3/gal. = $180 every two weeks, or roughly $4,700 per year spent on gasoline.
It is small compared to putting a kid through college. My wife has a grandson-in-law that has his parents $180,000 in debt so he could graduate from the University of Miami Florida. I think college education has inflated much faster than the price of gas. Not only will the poor be forced out of a car. They will not be able to get a higher education. It is just an example of the elitism taking over our country.
$4700 per year is not as much of a burden on a $100,000 family income as $2300 per year on a $50,000 income. I would dare say most people in the lower income bracket cannot afford a new high mileage car. The hybrids are being bought by the upper income folks that are trying to preserve their money.
I imagine the hybrid demographic, by and large, is probably above average when it comes to household income.
Not to make a sweeping generalization, but usually when lower income people want to live beyond their means, they're going to do it with something flashy, something that makes them feel important, such as a big, in-your-face SUV, or a used luxury car. Most of them probably aren't lusting after hybrids.
or roughly $4,700 per year spent on gasoline. That's no small expense.
That's about 1-2 days in a hospital, 5 months of health insurance, the damage a typical 15 mph accident causes, or about what my 401K goes down on a bad stock-day. And it's only about 1/5 the price of the average new vehicle.
If you're buying a Suburban and putting out $40,000, yes $3.00/gal is not that much. $2,400/yr is relatively small compared to $40,000. Even $3,000 or $4,000 is small.
Another example would be my former gf - a nurse with 20 years experience. The nurses in her unit make $130,000. She drives a Lexus 330, 40 miles each way to work. She pays more to park then gas costs her. $4 gas is not going to get her into an Aveo.
But the vast majority of US car buyers, at least according to the current statistics, can afford a $22K vehicle.
I think that needs to be qualified to say the new car buyers. For the most part poorer people don't buy new cars. So while they might not be able to buy a new hybrid they will be able to buy one that's 5 years old. So these more affluent buyers are purchasing the fuel efficient vehicles that will eventually get passed on to the poorer people. the comment that these new hybrids don't help poor people is invalid. They just don't help them now. .
However, I tend to agree with Andre. For whatever reason poor people don't seem particularly attracted to fuel efficient vehicles. Give a poor person $22-26k to go buy a vehicle and I doubt he's rushing to the Toyota dealership to pick up his Prius.
If you're buying a Suburban and putting out $40,000, yes $3.00/gal is not that much. $2,400/yr is relatively small compared to $40,000. Even $3,000 or $4,000 is small.
Good point. However, I imagine a lot of people are already struggling to get the Suburban in the first place, and probably didn't even consider the costs to feed the thing! Basically, people who never should have bought one in the first place.
Another example would be my former gf - a nurse with 20 years experience. The nurses in her unit make $130,000.
That statement MIGHT have been true in 2004-2005, but not today.
According to the WSJ & Toyota it is still the case.
Toyota Tries to Sell Priuses Where Tractors Are Sexy By GINA CHON October 3, 2007; Page B1
Still, hybrid vehicles overall remain a niche product, mainly purchased by affluent consumers on the coasts. Hybrids of all kinds made up just 1.5% of all new vehicle sales in 2006, with the Washington, D.C., area, Oregon and California ranking in the top three for the highest percentage of hybrids sold among new cars, according to R.L. Polk & Co.
However, I imagine a lot of people are already struggling to get the Suburban in the first place, and probably didn't even consider the costs to feed the thing!
Sure there are people struggling to do that, while maintaining a roof over their head, eat, healthcare, utilities, ... But is the problem increasing gas prices or is the problem that their trying to spend too much overall? I'll say it again - do you know people who spend $75/month for cable TV, spend $40/week for cigarettes, buy lottery tickets, and drink in bars, and then complain because their gasoline bill went up $5/week? I think people have a lot of excess money to spend compared to previous generations, and that these gasoline prices (to most people) is just a bunch of whining because they may have to cutback on some luxury they now buy.
Even better is when people have several pets they feed and take to the vets, and then they complain they're having trouble paying the bills or putting gas in the car!
Can I have her phone number?
Go to any major urban area and you'll find a lot of nurses, cops, firefighters, and other middle-class people hauling down $100K or more in salary. Now consider all the stocks that people own, all the apartments, and businesses, and you quickly see there are many millions of people who have significant income, and aren't really concerned with $3 or $4/gal gas.
Sure there are people struggling to do that, while maintaining a roof over their head, eat, healthcare, utilities, ... But is the problem increasing gas prices or is the problem that their trying to spend too much overall? I'll say it again - do you know people who spend $75/month for cable TV, spend $40/week for cigarettes, buy lottery tickets, and drink in bars, and then complain because their gasoline bill went up $5/week? I think people have a lot of excess money to spend compared to previous generations, and that these gasoline prices (to most people) is just a bunch of whining because they may have to cutback on some luxury they now buy.
I agree to an extent - there are a lot of things that people today view as necessities that didn't even exist 25, 30 years ago - (cell phones, home PCs, high speed internet connections, satellite or cable TV, HD-TV, etc).
Another point is - the price of gas had been stable or actually declining in price (in infation adjusted terms) for so long, people got used to it being cheap.
I haven't checked with an inflation calculator to get the exact numbers, but I would assume that $1 a gallon gas in 1979 probably is close to what we are paying today in 2008 dollars.
Honestly, I think we're weathering this ~$3.00/gal gas better today than we did the $1.00 gas back in 1979/1980. But then, fuel economy has improved tremendously since then, so filling up a 2008 Malibu won't be as painful as filling up a 1980 Malibu. And we're also not stuck with 15% mortgages, either! And the gas stations aren't rationing fuel and running
Yep, I agree - I remember high interest rates and gas rationing back then. People sometimes have selective memories of "the good old days"! LOL!
Also agree, most car owners are better off now than in 1979. The ones that are hurting are the ones driving Suburbans, Tahoes, Expeditions, Sequoias, etc... that probably get similar mpg to a 1978 Chrysler!
There's a problem with our Prius, but not with its performance. It gives us just what we expected in that department: great gas mileage, good fit and finish, Toyota reliability.
The problem is what people think of you if you drive one. Everyone assumes you're a pious, self-righteous eco-puritan Democrat, which I am not (even though Al Gore can kiss my carbon footprint). We bought our Prius more for foreign policy reasons than environmental ones.
It didn't help when one of Sam's mischievous school friends painted Democrat and Feminist on the back window. Filling up at the Wal-Mart gas pump that day was a little uncomfortable.
But anyhow, I think we've solved the problemSee How
meme_vector said... I looked at the Prius but ended up buying the Honda Civic hybrid because it has a back seat that you can stuff a deer carcass into.
I wouldn't buy a Prius (or any car) to make any kind of "Political Statement". I certainly wouldn't have bought one back when gas was $1.50 a gallon (or whatever exactly it was when the Prius came out), because the increase in cost over a Corolla would take forever to make up in increased MPG. Now that gas is over $3.00 and maybe headed towards $4.00, a Prius makes much more sense. If I were buying a new car today, I would certainly take a long hard look at a Prius.
You should take a long-hard look at the 2009 VW Jetta tdi when it is introduced later this year. You can google-it and you'll find some Canadian reviews and pricing. And of course there will be other diesels such as the Accord, and a whole bunch in the pipeline from other manufacturers.
A VW Jetta TDI is going to be eligible for a federal tax credit, just like the Prius used to have. I believe the initial estimate is 42 mpg city, 52 mpg highway.
The chances of that are still mighty slim. Small PU trucks with diesel or hybrid are likely to be built in a foreign country. Congress in 1963 blocked small economical trucks from entering our market with a 25% import tariff. If Detroit does not want to build small diesel PU trucks we should get them from abroad.
The Chicken Tax was instituted back in 1963, and was aimed at European (read VW) truckmakers. The long and the short of it is that there was a trade war going back then between the USA and Europe. The Europeans tripled the tax of chickens being imported into Europe, and the US retaliated by putting a 25% tax on any truck imported into the USA. That's how it came about, and we've lived with it ever since.
So now there is an effort afoot by the Bush administration for a free-trade agreement with Thailand that would substantially reduce this tariff, if not eliminate it. The UAW and Detroit automakers are fighting this tooth-and-nail not to let this happen. They fear that if the Chicken Tax is reduced or repealed, the US will be flooded with cheap pickups made in Thailand, and that their "truck cash cow" will disappear.
My feeling is that I would like to see a lot more diversity in the types of trucks offered for sale here, like small compact diesel trucks, and many of the other types of trucks we see sold in other markets, but can't be sold here at a profit, because of the 25% tariff. Eliminating the Chicken tax would allow that to happen. Imported cars have a 2.5% tax. I think for imported trucks it should be the same.
"You should take a long-hard look at the 2009 VW Jetta TDI..."
I looked. Here are my observations:
Good -- Looks. Good -- Power. 140 hp ain't much, but 235 torque is a monster number. Good -- MPG. 44/52 However, the Prius WAS rated at 50/60, dropped to 48/45.
Bad -- Price. $25,000 - $30,000 means $30,000+, not including dealer mark-ups. Bad -- Diesel. Currently selling for $3.50 while gasoline is $3.10.
I'll be interested to see the real-world price and performance numbers on this car. I hope it does well. .
Sorry, gotta add one more TDI 'bad' - it's a VW, and they have yet to show a clear improvement in reliability from the low level they've recently attained (and I owned VWs for 15 years).
Good -- Looks. Good -- Power. 140 hp ain't much, but 235 torque is a monster number. Good -- MPG. 44/52 However, the Prius WAS rated at 50/60, dropped to 48/45.
Bad -- Price. $25,000 - $30,000 means $30,000+, not including dealer mark-ups. Bad -- Diesel. Currently selling for $3.50 while gasoline is $3.10.
I'll be interested to see the real-world price and performance numbers on this car. I hope it does well.
Highlighted text. Fuel economy. This could be a major embarassment in the brewing for VW.
Note in the Canadian review of the new TDI that they reference fuel economy in the normal metric method as done in Canada then parenthetically show the mpg with a slight addendum 'Imp'. link TDI review
"The news is good for both people and the environment: not only does the new 2.0-litre TDI engine meet cleaner diesel emissions standards, it's also more powerful than the previous 1.9-litre TDI engine while offering about the same outstanding fuel economy and driving range: approximately 6.5 L/100 km (44 m.p.g. Imp.) in the City and 5.2 L/100 km (52 m.p.g.) Highway. With those fuel economy numbers, the 2009 Jetta TDI should once again be eligible for the federal government's $2,000 Eco-Auto fuel economy rebate (if the program is still available)."
Do the direct conversion on an internet converter and one gets the following for the US market. City 6.5L / 100 km = 36 mpg US Hwy 5.2L / 100 km = 45 mpg US.
Now the EPA tests may be done entirely different than those in CA but the US values better be 20% better at least. At the above numbers the Jetta TDI won't be much of a fuel economy competitor for either the HCH or the Prius. It would fall just above the gasser versions of the Civic and Corolla.
with the increasing price of fuel, i've been hearing a lot about peek oil, so i've been peeking at the oil level a lot more thanks to that. if we all consider peek oil and keep our vehicles oil levels topped off, will they get enough better mpg to offset the extra oil that we all had to add? Or to save on oil imports should we all run our cars oil at the bottom of the "full" range? what if we all start using synthetic oil for 10k or 15k oil-change-interval? make a difference, peek at your oil today.
Before I was driving my "ruining the world" SUV, I had a Jetta TDI. It was a great car, that provided decent performance and real world 50mpg going 70mph down the highway. I'd buy another in a heartbeat if I needed a nice small sedan.
Bad -- Diesel. Currently selling for $3.50 while gasoline is $3.10.
The overall fuel economy of each should also be considered. The January 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics (pg 75) has a comparison between a Toyota Prius and a VW Polo turbodiesel (currently not available in the US). The Prius gets 54 mpg, while the Polo gets 74.3 mpg.
The higher fuel economy in this case more than offsets the higher cost of diesel fuel.
1 Imp. Gallon = 1.2 US Gallons. You'll read that 1 Imp. Gallon = 5 US quarts = 1.25 US Gallons. That's incorrect, the difference goes back centuries, to the difference between a "wine gallon" and an "ale gallon". Just so you know...
I looked up the Polo. It has a 1.4 litre engine, goes 0-60 mph in 13 seconds, and costs $25,000 (12,700 british pounds).
No wonder it's not available in the U.S. -- nobody would buy one!
Yes, the article never said anything about its performance. :sick:
I wonder how well the Smart car does in the mpg category? I first saw these in Paris and have since seen a few on local highways. I wouldn't think something that small and strange looking would have satisfactory performance for most US drivers but I've never checked one out.
I looked up the Polo. It has a 1.4 litre engine, goes 0-60 mph in 13 seconds, and costs $25,000 (12,700 british pounds).
When you hear quotes of what cars cost in Canada, Britain, and Australia, one must realize that cars in many countries cost more than here. (You can gleam that from the BBC show "Top Gear") I've been looking at a Volvo C30, and going on the C30world forums you see people in Europe paying about $35K for what is a $25K version here. I believe there are all sorts of taxes added into the cost of the cars in many countries.
VW has stated that the cost of their Jetta TDI is going to be about a $2-$3K premium over the comparable gas versions. If you want some proof go back a year or 2 and lookup what a TDI cost vs. a gas version.
Now whether you like VW or not is not the issue. Honda and GM definitely have diesels coming. I'm sure other manufacturers will too. And manufacturers that have not made 60,000 hybrid units, will have cars eligible for those same federal tax credits. So the extra for the diesel engine will basically be paid for by the tax credit.
I'd like to see Hummer make that small H4 with a diesel.
In Europe I think the Cadillac CTS is going diesel next year.
A year ago, VW dealers were selling the left over 2006 TDIs for $22,000, plus a few thousand dollars dealer mark-up.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I hope the new TDI costs $19,000. I hope it gets 50 mpg. I hope it gets a fat federal tax credit. I hope the whole country discovers the efficiency, reliability, and power of diesels.
I guess we'll all get the answer in a few months. VW supposedly started production in Jan., and should have the TDIs in the showrooms by "late spring." .
I looked up the Polo. It has a 1.4 litre engine, goes 0-60 mph in 13 seconds, and costs $25,000 (12,700 british pounds).
No wonder it's not available in the U.S. -- nobody would buy one!
I would seriously consider one as my commuter/work road trip car. I am past my days of trying to impress strangers by gunning it fron stoplights. My only concern would be if it could not get up to 55 mph from a dead stop at teh bottom of an enterance ramp. That would be a safety concern not a performance concern.
There are plenty of solutions, but little is being done to bring them online. All homes and facilities could be powered and heated with solar and wind power. Railroads (which are much more energy efficient at moving goods over the long haul than semis are) could be expanded and more utilized to vastly cut down on the number of semis. Many more nuclear power plants could be built. Hybrid and all electric technologies could be much further along than they are. The list goes on and on. The problem isn't that there aren't alternatives. The problem is they aren't being pursued because companies that are in the business of selling fossil fuel based energy products don't want any competition in the market, so they lobby with special interest groups and line politition's pockets so they can keep the market cornered.
I will grit my teeth and pay the piper. What else can I do? I HAVE to get to work. My wife HAS to get to work. We HAVE drive to get groceries, go to medical appointments, etc. The only thing we can do is drive as little as possible, drive the most fuel efficient vehicles we can, and keep pressuring our governmental leaders to come up with a long overdue, long term energy plan aimed at getting us off of fossil fuels all together and to become completely energy self-sufficient. Until that happens, we're at the mercy of the world's oil barons.
and keep pressuring our governmental leaders to come up with a long overdue, long term energy plan aimed at getting us off of fossil fuels all together and to become completely energy self-sufficient.
A plan is worth the paper it is printed on, if there is no current solution. Since scientists have not found out how to provide the amount of energy necessary to all areas of the country during all seasons, then I doubt some lawyers who become congressmen are going to come up with much of a plan! Jimmy Carter was probably the best chance at actually making a decent plan - and we have enacted much of his conservation plans, and we have worn an extra sweater, but it is not enough.
We have enacted CAFE, we have EnergyStar appliances, insulation programs, plans to increase CAFE, phasing out incandescent light-bulbs, setting up some wind-farms, but it will not be enough to stop the growth-rate. We will continue to use more and more energy of whatever form we can get, despite all the conservation efforts.
Until that happens, we're at the mercy of the world's oil barons.
Oil is just one part of the globe's energy sources. I believe the #1 fossil fuel reserve is coal, and natural gas would be #2 if you count the amount of methane on the ocean floors.
Ouch, $3.90/gallon diesel is going to scare off lots of buyers, and if demand from cars for diesel increases prices further, the economics go away. Maybe VW wasn't wrong when they went after their 'twincharger' gas engine (turbo/super charged 1.4 l). Claims equal mileage to a diesel, on regular gas.
Sounds sensible to me. Went by a gas station today. Regular is $3.09....Car Diesel is $3.69 a gallon. That's 20% higher price. How could you get $350 car payments? I bought an '84 car new, put down the sales tax and maybe $1000 more and had $320 payments for 3 years. The car was $10,600 plus tax. $350 payments let you own today's cheapest car in what, 6 or 7 years?
I just read an article that said 99.9% of products claiming to be green are not really green. Then they later said that having hardwood floors in your oversized house is not green. Living in a tiny flat within walking distance to your job IS green. You save on heating energy and travel energy. You'll have more money in your wallet when you get mugged.
With all the comments about saving the environment, How is it that there is this huge summer vacation flying season? Airplanes consume massive amounts of fuel and create massive amounts of pollution per passenger mile. Going 500 miles an hour takes energy. What about all the lights on at night? In my next house, there is a requirement to burn 2 garage lights all night. What about spring break? how much fuel does that burn up? How many people run the clothes dryer by a timer and never bother to check if the clothes are dry earlier? How many hotel windows are open or rooms empty while the heat is on? How many municipal employees drive around all day doing nothing but burning fuel? When my son played little league baseball, his teamate's dad was a cop and he sat in his squad car with the car running and the a/c blasting for the entire 4 hrs of a doubleheader, many times, to keep cool and bug free. We need to be sensible about conserving, Too many are not, but living within walking or biking distance is a pipe dream. Downsizing to a 600 sq. ft. place is uncomfortable and would make me not want to go home. I want a garage bigger than that. 4 people live in my house with 3100 s.f. of heated space. My combined electric bill for heat and a/c is $720 a year, and the power comes from burning coal. That's 50 cents per person per day when averaged out.
How could you get $350 car payments? I bought an '84 car new, put down the sales tax and maybe $1000 more and had $320 payments for 3 years. The car was $10,600 plus tax. $350 payments let you own today's cheapest car in what, 6 or 7 years?
Well, my 2000 Intrepid, purchased 11/6/99, was $347.66 per month. That was with $2000 down, financing $20,389 for 5 years at 0.9%. I probably could've gotten it a bit cheaper, but I opted for an extended warranty that was about $1200, and covered it through 5 years/100K miles.
Weren't interest rates still pretty high in 1984? I vaguely remember an old Nissan truck ad from around that timeframe that had a bunch of soldiers marching, chanting off "Nine Point Nine, Nine Point Nine. I gottatruck for Nine Point Nine!" Like it was something to be proud of!
Now, by 1986, I know rates were really dropping. My Mom bought a brand-new 1986 Monte at the end of the model year, and I think it was 2.9% for 4 years. Payments were something like $280 per month.
Now, you're not going to get much of a car these days for $350 per month for 2-3 years, not without a huge down payment. But if you finance it for 5 years, which is probably considered a short term these days, you could still probably get a decent car. Not an extravagant car, but a decent car.
i've owned 4 VW TDIs since 2003, for two drivers. total of about 250k miles. 03 jetta wagon, 05 passat, 06 jetta, 06 newbeetle. they've all been reliable and the dealer service great, with minimal shop time outside of oil/fuelfilter changes. one exception was the beetle had a couple of plastic/interior pieces break, and had a water leak that took multiple early visits to correct. 03 got 48 mpg tank after tank, US gallons. passat got 37. 06s get a lousy 45 mpg. (mostly 75+ highway driving- mpg is even better for 'suburban' driving).
I bought my 1987 Chevrolet Caprice Classic for $227 a month for three years in December 1987, but I did put down a huge down payment and the car was a leftover and an oddball with the 4.3 V-6.
You could probably get something like a Chevrolet Impala for $350 a month for 5 years. Shoot, to get anything for $350 a month for 3 years, you have to have a massive down payment. Funny thing is, the guy who can put down at least $5K isn't the kind of guy who will typically be buying a Kia Rio. Most likely the guy buying a Kia Rio would be somebody who is living a hand-to-mouth existence and hoping his credit gets approved.
I imagine that the cost of hybrid technology will come down someday. It will be a godsend for poorer folks who need to save fuel costs versus being some silly "green statement" for some smug suburbanite as it is today. Wonder if Hyundai-Kia is working on some kind of hybrid?
Comments
Pretty close. $1.00 in 1979 is the equivalent to $3.15 in 2007 dollars. Interestingly though, back in 1979, or at least the later portion of it, people were scrambling to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Chrysler dumped all of its big blocks for 1979, while Ford dropped the 460 from cars, leaving just a 400 big-block to power the Lincolns. And GM was working to pare the big 400 and 403 V-8s from some of their car lines, leaving just the 350 engines as the top choice. By 1980 those 400/403's would be gone entirely. The automotive landscape was changing, very rapidly, because of that $1.00 per gallon gasoline.
Honestly, I think we're weathering this ~$3.00/gal gas better today than we did the $1.00 gas back in 1979/1980. But then, fuel economy has improved tremendously since then, so filling up a 2008 Malibu won't be as painful as filling up a 1980 Malibu. And we're also not stuck with 15% mortgages, either! And the gas stations aren't rationing fuel and running out.
That means even if they're only putting 12,000 miles per year on each vehicle, they're filling those tanks every 2 weeks. 60 gallons @ $3/gal. = $180 every two weeks, or roughly $4,700 per year spent on gasoline.
That's no small expense.
.
Not only will the poor be forced out of a car. They will not be able to get a higher education. It is just an example of the elitism taking over our country.
$4700 per year is not as much of a burden on a $100,000 family income as $2300 per year on a $50,000 income. I would dare say most people in the lower income bracket cannot afford a new high mileage car. The hybrids are being bought by the upper income folks that are trying to preserve their money.
Not to make a sweeping generalization, but usually when lower income people want to live beyond their means, they're going to do it with something flashy, something that makes them feel important, such as a big, in-your-face SUV, or a used luxury car. Most of them probably aren't lusting after hybrids.
But the vast majority of US car buyers, at least according to the current statistics, can afford a $22K vehicle.
Not everyone, but a dang sure a lot of everyones.
That's no small expense.
That's about 1-2 days in a hospital, 5 months of health insurance, the damage a typical 15 mph accident causes, or about what my 401K goes down on a bad stock-day. And it's only about 1/5 the price of the average new vehicle.
If you're buying a Suburban and putting out $40,000, yes $3.00/gal is not that much. $2,400/yr is relatively small compared to $40,000. Even $3,000 or $4,000 is small.
Another example would be my former gf - a nurse with 20 years experience. The nurses in her unit make $130,000. She drives a Lexus 330, 40 miles each way to work. She pays more to park then gas costs her. $4 gas is not going to get her into an Aveo.
I think that needs to be qualified to say the new car buyers. For the most part poorer people don't buy new cars. So while they might not be able to buy a new hybrid they will be able to buy one that's 5 years old. So these more affluent buyers are purchasing the fuel efficient vehicles that will eventually get passed on to the poorer people. the comment that these new hybrids don't help poor people is invalid. They just don't help them now. .
However, I tend to agree with Andre. For whatever reason poor people don't seem particularly attracted to fuel efficient vehicles. Give a poor person $22-26k to go buy a vehicle and I doubt he's rushing to the Toyota dealership to pick up his Prius.
Good point. However, I imagine a lot of people are already struggling to get the Suburban in the first place, and probably didn't even consider the costs to feed the thing! Basically, people who never should have bought one in the first place.
Another example would be my former gf - a nurse with 20 years experience. The nurses in her unit make $130,000.
Can I have her phone number? :shades:
According to the WSJ & Toyota it is still the case.
Toyota Tries to Sell Priuses Where Tractors Are Sexy
By GINA CHON
October 3, 2007; Page B1
Still, hybrid vehicles overall remain a niche product, mainly purchased by affluent consumers on the coasts. Hybrids of all kinds made up just 1.5% of all new vehicle sales in 2006, with the Washington, D.C., area, Oregon and California ranking in the top three for the highest percentage of hybrids sold among new cars, according to R.L. Polk & Co.
Sure there are people struggling to do that, while maintaining a roof over their head, eat, healthcare, utilities, ... But is the problem increasing gas prices or is the problem that their trying to spend too much overall? I'll say it again - do you know people who spend $75/month for cable TV, spend $40/week for cigarettes, buy lottery tickets, and drink in bars, and then complain because their gasoline bill went up $5/week? I think people have a lot of excess money to spend compared to previous generations, and that these gasoline prices (to most people) is just a bunch of whining because they may have to cutback on some luxury they now buy.
Even better is when people have several pets they feed and take to the vets, and then they complain they're having trouble paying the bills or putting gas in the car!
Can I have her phone number?
Go to any major urban area and you'll find a lot of nurses, cops, firefighters, and other middle-class people hauling down $100K or more in salary. Now consider all the stocks that people own, all the apartments, and businesses, and you quickly see there are many millions of people who have significant income, and aren't really concerned with $3 or $4/gal gas.
I agree to an extent - there are a lot of things that people today view as necessities that didn't even exist 25, 30 years ago - (cell phones, home PCs, high speed internet connections, satellite or cable TV, HD-TV, etc).
Another point is - the price of gas had been stable or actually declining in price (in infation adjusted terms) for so long, people got used to it being cheap.
I haven't checked with an inflation calculator to get the exact numbers, but I would assume that $1 a gallon gas in 1979 probably is close to what we are paying today in 2008 dollars.
Yep, I agree - I remember high interest rates and gas rationing back then. People sometimes have selective memories of "the good old days"! LOL!
Also agree, most car owners are better off now than in 1979. The ones that are hurting are the ones driving Suburbans, Tahoes, Expeditions, Sequoias, etc... that probably get similar mpg to a 1978 Chrysler!
There's a problem with our Prius, but not with its performance. It gives us just what we expected in that department: great gas mileage, good fit and finish, Toyota reliability.
The problem is what people think of you if you drive one. Everyone assumes you're a pious, self-righteous eco-puritan Democrat, which I am not (even though Al Gore can kiss my carbon footprint). We bought our Prius more for foreign policy reasons than environmental ones.
It didn't help when one of Sam's mischievous school friends painted Democrat and Feminist on the back window. Filling up at the Wal-Mart gas pump that day was a little uncomfortable.
But anyhow, I think we've solved the problem See How
Just today I saw regular unleaded at $3.02 and Diesel at $3.70 at the same station.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
meme_vector said...
I looked at the Prius but ended up buying the Honda Civic hybrid because it has a back seat that you can stuff a deer carcass into.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
this is one of the reasons we need some automaker to offer a hybrid pick-up post-haste. Or a diesel.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
A VW Jetta TDI is going to be eligible for a federal tax credit, just like the Prius used to have. I believe the initial estimate is 42 mpg city, 52 mpg highway.
The Chicken Tax was instituted back in 1963, and was aimed at European (read VW) truckmakers. The long and the short of it is that there was a trade war going back then between the USA and Europe. The Europeans tripled the tax of chickens being imported into Europe, and the US retaliated by putting a 25% tax on any truck imported into the USA. That's how it came about, and we've lived with it ever since.
So now there is an effort afoot by the Bush administration for a free-trade agreement with Thailand that would substantially reduce this tariff, if not eliminate it. The UAW and Detroit automakers are fighting this tooth-and-nail not to let this happen. They fear that if the Chicken Tax is reduced or repealed, the US will be flooded with cheap pickups made in Thailand, and that their "truck cash cow" will disappear.
My feeling is that I would like to see a lot more diversity in the types of trucks offered for sale here, like small compact diesel trucks, and many of the other types of trucks we see sold in other markets, but can't be sold here at a profit, because of the 25% tariff. Eliminating the Chicken tax would allow that to happen. Imported cars have a 2.5% tax. I think for imported trucks it should be the same.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f12b78a/4713
I looked. Here are my observations:
Good -- Looks.
Good -- Power. 140 hp ain't much, but 235 torque is a monster number.
Good -- MPG. 44/52 However, the Prius WAS rated at 50/60, dropped to 48/45.
Bad -- Price. $25,000 - $30,000 means $30,000+, not including dealer mark-ups.
Bad -- Diesel. Currently selling for $3.50 while gasoline is $3.10.
I'll be interested to see the real-world price and performance numbers on this car. I hope it does well.
.
Yes, I compared the mpg of the Prius to the Jetta TDI. Another post pointed out that the TDI's mpg was inflated because it used imperial gallons.
The Prius exceeds the TDI's mpg by a wide margin. Factor in the extra expense of diesel, and it's a difficult sell.
"The Prius gets 54 mpg, while the Polo gets 74.3 mpg."
I looked up the Polo. It has a 1.4 litre engine, goes 0-60 mph in 13 seconds, and costs $25,000 (12,700 british pounds).
No wonder it's not available in the U.S. -- nobody would buy one!
Good -- Looks.
Good -- Power. 140 hp ain't much, but 235 torque is a monster number.
Good -- MPG. 44/52 However, the Prius WAS rated at 50/60, dropped to 48/45.
Bad -- Price. $25,000 - $30,000 means $30,000+, not including dealer mark-ups.
Bad -- Diesel. Currently selling for $3.50 while gasoline is $3.10.
I'll be interested to see the real-world price and performance numbers on this car. I hope it does well.
Highlighted text. Fuel economy. This could be a major embarassment in the brewing for VW.
Note in the Canadian review of the new TDI that they reference fuel economy in the normal metric method as done in Canada then parenthetically show the mpg with a slight addendum 'Imp'. link TDI review
"The news is good for both people and the environment: not only does the new 2.0-litre TDI engine meet cleaner diesel emissions standards, it's also more powerful than the previous 1.9-litre TDI engine while offering about the same outstanding fuel economy and driving range: approximately 6.5 L/100 km (44 m.p.g. Imp.) in the City and 5.2 L/100 km (52 m.p.g.) Highway. With those fuel economy numbers, the 2009 Jetta TDI should once again be eligible for the federal government's $2,000 Eco-Auto fuel economy rebate (if the program is still available)."
Do the direct conversion on an internet converter and one gets the following for the US market.
City 6.5L / 100 km = 36 mpg US
Hwy 5.2L / 100 km = 45 mpg US.
Now the EPA tests may be done entirely different than those in CA but the US values better be 20% better at least. At the above numbers the Jetta TDI won't be much of a fuel economy competitor for either the HCH or the Prius. It would fall just above the gasser versions of the Civic and Corolla.
Very interesting.
Or to save on oil imports should we all run our cars oil at the bottom of the "full" range? what if we all start using synthetic oil for 10k or 15k oil-change-interval? make a difference, peek at your oil today.
The overall fuel economy of each should also be considered. The January 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics (pg 75) has a comparison between a Toyota Prius and a VW Polo turbodiesel (currently not available in the US). The Prius gets 54 mpg, while the Polo gets 74.3 mpg.
The higher fuel economy in this case more than offsets the higher cost of diesel fuel.
No wonder it's not available in the U.S. -- nobody would buy one!
Yes, the article never said anything about its performance. :sick:
I wonder how well the Smart car does in the mpg category? I first saw these in Paris and have since seen a few on local highways. I wouldn't think something that small and strange looking would have satisfactory performance for most US drivers but I've never checked one out.
The Prius is a mid-size (barely, but it is), while the Polo is a sub-compact.
Not exactly a fair fight. We may as well compare the Prius to a VW Tourage V10 TDI. I bet they're in the same size class.
I'd compare the Prius to a 4 door Golf TDI, and even then I bet the Prius has a bit more room.
Not as well as you might think - 33/40 with the new 2008 EPA test method.
When you hear quotes of what cars cost in Canada, Britain, and Australia, one must realize that cars in many countries cost more than here. (You can gleam that from the BBC show "Top Gear") I've been looking at a Volvo C30, and going on the C30world forums you see people in Europe paying about $35K for what is a $25K version here. I believe there are all sorts of taxes added into the cost of the cars in many countries.
VW has stated that the cost of their Jetta TDI is going to be about a $2-$3K premium over the comparable gas versions. If you want some proof go back a year or 2 and lookup what a TDI cost vs. a gas version.
Now whether you like VW or not is not the issue. Honda and GM definitely have diesels coming. I'm sure other manufacturers will too. And manufacturers that have not made 60,000 hybrid units, will have cars eligible for those same federal tax credits. So the extra for the diesel engine will basically be paid for by the tax credit.
I'd like to see Hummer make that small H4 with a diesel.
In Europe I think the Cadillac CTS is going diesel next year.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I hope the new TDI costs $19,000. I hope it gets 50 mpg. I hope it gets a fat federal tax credit. I hope the whole country discovers the efficiency, reliability, and power of diesels.
I guess we'll all get the answer in a few months. VW supposedly started production in Jan., and should have the TDIs in the showrooms by "late spring."
.
No wonder it's not available in the U.S. -- nobody would buy one!
I would seriously consider one as my commuter/work road trip car. I am past my days of trying to impress strangers by gunning it fron stoplights. My only concern would be if it could not get up to 55 mph from a dead stop at teh bottom of an enterance ramp. That would be a safety concern not a performance concern.
the time.
A plan is worth the paper it is printed on, if there is no current solution. Since scientists have not found out how to provide the amount of energy necessary to all areas of the country during all seasons, then I doubt some lawyers who become congressmen are going to come up with much of a plan!
We have enacted CAFE, we have EnergyStar appliances, insulation programs, plans to increase CAFE, phasing out incandescent light-bulbs, setting up some wind-farms, but it will not be enough to stop the growth-rate. We will continue to use more and more energy of whatever form we can get, despite all the conservation efforts.
Until that happens, we're at the mercy of the world's oil barons.
Oil is just one part of the globe's energy sources. I believe the #1 fossil fuel reserve is coal, and natural gas would be #2 if you count the amount of methane on the ocean floors.
Went by a gas station today. Regular is $3.09....Car Diesel is $3.69 a gallon. That's 20% higher price.
How could you get $350 car payments? I bought an '84 car new, put down the sales tax and maybe $1000 more and had $320 payments for 3 years. The car was $10,600 plus tax. $350 payments let you own today's cheapest car in what, 6 or 7 years?
I just read an article that said 99.9% of products claiming to be green are not really green. Then they later said that having hardwood floors in your oversized house is not green. Living in a tiny flat within walking distance to your job IS green. You save on heating energy and travel energy. You'll have more money in your wallet when you get mugged.
With all the comments about saving the environment, How is it that there is this huge summer vacation flying season? Airplanes consume massive amounts of fuel and create massive amounts of pollution per passenger mile. Going 500 miles an hour takes energy. What about all the lights on at night? In my next house, there is a requirement to burn 2 garage lights all night. What about spring break? how much fuel does that burn up? How many people run the clothes dryer by a timer and never bother to check if the clothes are dry earlier? How many hotel windows are open or rooms empty while the heat is on? How many municipal employees drive around all day doing nothing but burning fuel? When my son played little league baseball, his teamate's dad was a cop and he sat in his squad car with the car running and the a/c blasting for the entire 4 hrs of a doubleheader, many times, to keep cool and bug free. We need to be sensible about conserving, Too many are not, but living within walking or biking distance is a pipe dream. Downsizing to a 600 sq. ft. place is uncomfortable and would make me not want to go home. I want a garage bigger than that. 4 people live in my house with 3100 s.f. of heated space. My combined electric bill for heat and a/c is $720 a year, and the power comes from burning coal. That's 50 cents per person per day when averaged out.
Well, my 2000 Intrepid, purchased 11/6/99, was $347.66 per month. That was with $2000 down, financing $20,389 for 5 years at 0.9%. I probably could've gotten it a bit cheaper, but I opted for an extended warranty that was about $1200, and covered it through 5 years/100K miles.
Weren't interest rates still pretty high in 1984? I vaguely remember an old Nissan truck ad from around that timeframe that had a bunch of soldiers marching, chanting off "Nine Point Nine, Nine Point Nine. I gottatruck for Nine Point Nine!" Like it was something to be proud of!
Now, by 1986, I know rates were really dropping. My Mom bought a brand-new 1986 Monte at the end of the model year, and I think it was 2.9% for 4 years. Payments were something like $280 per month.
Now, you're not going to get much of a car these days for $350 per month for 2-3 years, not without a huge down payment. But if you finance it for 5 years, which is probably considered a short term these days, you could still probably get a decent car. Not an extravagant car, but a decent car.
You could probably get something like a Chevrolet Impala for $350 a month for 5 years. Shoot, to get anything for $350 a month for 3 years, you have to have a massive down payment. Funny thing is, the guy who can put down at least $5K isn't the kind of guy who will typically be buying a Kia Rio. Most likely the guy buying a Kia Rio would be somebody who is living a hand-to-mouth existence and hoping his credit gets approved.
I imagine that the cost of hybrid technology will come down someday. It will be a godsend for poorer folks who need to save fuel costs versus being some silly "green statement" for some smug suburbanite as it is today. Wonder if Hyundai-Kia is working on some kind of hybrid?
Hyundia was supposed to be working on a hybrid Accent, but I haven't heard anything new about that yet.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D