Sea change in the auto industry.

[Dave@Moon]

Buried in yesterday's sad news re. GM SUV-dependent plant closings was a major change in the shape of the car market today. For those of you that missed it, the Ford F150 was toppled as the top selling vehicle in the U.S. for the first time in 26 years. It was <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">fifth</span></span> in sales in May, outsold by the Honda Civic & Accord and the Toyota Camry & Corolla.

It is probably the most dramatic one-month change in sales patterns in the U.S. industry since World War 2.

Toyota, Honda cars outsell Ford pickups

Civic takes over as top seller

Honda Civic becomes number one vehicle in US

[Matt Harwood]

It's a shame that everyone thought that the big SUV gravy train would last forever. Csaba Csere in this month's Car and Driver has a great editorial about the [completely unrealistic] CAFE standard increases and how lead times in the auto industry will make it impossible for an overnight switch to more efficient cars. Those who already have good small cars will flourish while everyone else gets theirs into the pipeline.

This really makes me unhappy--I think GM was finally turning the corner and building some great products. Hopefully the market for large-ish cars won't vanish completely (the Cadillac CTS, for instance, deserves to be a smash hit).

Like it or not, in 5 or 7 or 10 years, if you want to buy a new car, it'll probably be a hybrid no matter what it is.

[Dan Marx]

Here's a senario to consider:

Everyone is jumpin' to buy a new fuel efficient car, however, my Buick with a 3.8l engine is paid for. No payments, only oil changes and care and feeding. Why would I want to go into debt $20-30K+ for a car payment and then still pay $4.00 gas? Doesn't make any sense me. Sure GM is in a bind, but does that justify my purchase of a hybrid with a payment, I don't think so. Hey my Buick is a 2002 and good for another 100,000 miles. Just my thoughts. BTW, I get 21-25 mpg.

Dan

[Mark Shaw]

I think the new diesel engines that are quiet, fuel efficient, and more powerful will displace gasoline engines in trucks and larger luxury cars in the near future. Just look at what has been happening in Europe. The gasoline/electric Hybrids may be more popular now, but I think Biodiesel will eventually become the fuel of choice for N.America.

When these new diesel engines become more available, they will be able to burn biodiesel and blended diesel fuels made from a variety of crops and bio-waste. Fuels will differ from different parts of the country, and maybe some ethanol plants now being mothballed will be converted to process biodiesel from feedstocks other than corn. This evolution will significantly change what cars and trucks will use for fuel in the future.

I sell valve and automation products used in Ethanol plants, and they are all hurting now that the word is out that Ethanol is primarily a political answer to the import oil problem. Nobody is building new gasoline refineries because of environmental impacts and the fact that gasoline may not be the fuel of the future.

Since biodiesel is a more environmentally friendly process, it may prove to be more cost effective to produce it here in North America than gasoline. I suggest that it could easily become the cleanest and most cost effective fuel of choice. So, if you are currently driving a diesel, you may already be ahead of the game...

The one thing that never changes is that things will change.

[jscheib]

Mark,

Thanks for your insight. I am still chuging my 2000 VW Jetta TDI. I am thinking about a reppacement and am hoping that the new VW's will have diesels in the sporter models.

Thats the way I am thinking at this time and your comments support my thoughts.

John

[Dave@Moon]

I think the main point to be seen in last month's figures is the complete abandonment of trucks, let alone SUVs, as vehicles of personal transportation. Dealers are quoted as only being able to sell trucks to those "who really need them", as if that's an unusual situation.

Well, at least it <span style="font-style: italic">was</span> an unusual situation.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dan Marx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a senario to consider:

Everyone is jumpin' to buy a new fuel efficient car, however, my Buick with a 3.8l engine is paid for. No payments, only oil changes and care and feeding. Why would I want to go into debt $20-30K+ for a car payment and then still pay $4.00 gas? Doesn't make any sense me. Sure GM is in a bind, but does that justify my purchase of a hybrid with a payment, I don't think so. Hey my Buick is a 2002 and good for another 100,000 miles. Just my thoughts. BTW, I get 21-25 mpg.

Dan </div></div>

That's exactly the way I look at it.

There was an article in todays paper from Car Talk, where people write in about problems with their cars and try to get answers to the problems. A girl wrote in about her steering locking up while making a right turn in her 2003 Toyota Prius. She finally forced it to straighten out without hitting any cars. She had it towed to the dealer and they told her it would cost $2000 to repair it. Evidently the steering is controled electronically and there are sensors that tell the computer how far or hard to turn the wheel. The computer then sends an appropriate amount of electrical "boast" to the electric power steering motor. She tried to get Toyota to repair the problem because there was a recall on cars built after hers. They wouldn't warranty hers.

The guys who answer the questions told her "welcome to the world of technology"

I'll pay the price in gas, thank you.........

[JohnD1956]

The really sad thing is automakers should have seen this coming at least one year ago, when gas prices first jumped to $3.00 per gallon. Where were their bean counters then? Or was the greed for profit too great to overtake common sense? Now GM alone is eventually idling another 10,000 people.

Well here's a thought for ya, where do the automakers think future car buyers will get the resources to eventually buy any car, when we are all working for service industry wages? I don't know about you but I'm thinking it's time to buy an electric golf cart for street use.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The really sad thing is automakers should have seen this coming at least one year ago, when gas prices first jumped to $3.00 per gallon. Where were their bean counters then? Or was the greed for profit too great to overtake common sense? </div></div>

The answer to the second question is yes. SUVs and trucks enjoy tariff protections that allowed for huge profit margins that are unheard of in the car sector of the market. That's why Ford (for instance) would introduce <span style="text-decoration: underline">12 or 14</span> V6/V8/V10 SUVs in the same period of time that they introduced <span style="text-decoration: underline">3</span> 4 cylinder cars (one of which <span style="font-style: italic">-Ford Contour-</span> only lasted 4 years).

The answer to the first question is the answer to the second question, only with emphasis on who the question is centered on. "Bean counters" would of course be focused on the high profit margin vehicles, pumping all the developement and marketing dollars towards them. And it worked for them. Four years ago if you posted something here that was anti-SUV people would jump you like you just assulted Miss America. I know. I did.

Fortunately for society (unfortunately for Detroit-dependent sectors of the economy), other companies in other countries are not so hamstrung by "bean counters". Engineers still rule the roost at places like Honda and Toyota, and they often know how to design for the customer and not the profit margin. It was the engineers at those companies that decided to develope the Prius and the Insight <span style="text-decoration: underline">at the same time</span> as they developed the Sequoia and the Ridgeline.

The "Big 3", even the "Independents", used to think in those terms. Every "economy car" you can think of in the 1950-1980 era was redesigned at least as often as the other lines in whatever company you choose to follow. They weren't perfect, but they were an important part of the company's portfolio. Does anyone think that GM <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">ever</span></span> thought that the Chevy Cavalier was an important product?

As for anticipating what we've seen in fuel costs, many oil people did. It's been common knowledge for more than a decade in the oil industry that this was going to happen sometime in the mid-2000s. And they never kept it a secret either! If you google "peak oil" you'll see dozens of web sites that are 10+ years old now. When I discovered their writings in 2004/2005 I dumped a V6 pickup for the Prius as soon as I could. I'll bet the Prius designers were reading those writings back in 1995 when they were new ideas. (<span style="color: #990000">BTW--$4/gal. is not the end. It's will be much worse quite soon.</span>)

They (the "peak oil" petro-engineers) might not have been right, and so the companies that knew what they were doing developed both commercial hybrids <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-style: italic">and</span></span> personal use trucks. No matter what happened Toyota/Honda/Nissan/etc. would have a viable product line.

Where are the viable Buicks/Chryslers/Lincolns/etc.? Why is the Chevy Volt <span style="text-decoration: underline">still</span> 2 years away?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't know about you but I'm thinking it's time to buy an electric golf cart for street use. </div></div>

It might be. Let's hope more than 2 or 3 companies are preparing to provide you with one.

[Matt Harwood]

I really like diesels and wish my truck had one. However, I don't think diesel is a real solution, but merely an alternative (especially in trucks). Although a diesel gets more MPG, the purchase price is often higher and the fuel is 25-30% more expensive. The relationship between gas and diesel prices is not likely to change. First, you can't get as much diesel from a barrel of crude as you can gasoline (and the low sulphur fuels required in the US reduce that number even more). Second, China is using diesel to power a lot of powerplants and factories, as is India. Third, Asia and Europe are 3/4 diesel in all vehicles, so demand is going to stay high (nevermind our need for it here for nearly 100% of our shipping infrastructure). It'll never be cheaper than gas again. Even if a diesel car is 25% more efficient than a gasoline car, in many cases it's a zero-sum game.

Biodiesel is a neat product, but we consume 20 <span style="font-style: italic">million</span> barrels of oil <span style="font-style: italic">a day</span>. How many french fries is that? No way biodiesel could ever be produced in the staggering volumes needed. And for plant waste being processed into fuel, there isn't enough ariable land in the US to make that possible, either, even if we all give up eating food. However, I agree that pursuing these ideas will help ease the supply issues if they are mainstreamed. Call it a viable supplement, but probably not a replacement.

I think a diesel hybrid might be a good idea, however. Combining the advantages of both would increase efficiency even further.

Sky, is that really true that there is no connection between the steering wheel and the tires? That sounds like a ticking liability bomb if ever I heard one. Perhaps the failure was more akin to the power steering belt on your car breaking and leaving you with manual steering only? Wasn't there a recall on Priuses for something in the steering? I don't remember. However, one isolated incident shouldn't sour you on the technology. It will unavoidable in 10 years if you want a new car (yes, I know we'll all hang on to our old cars instead).

I once heard of a car somewhere whose fuel pump broke and the car stopped running--in traffic! I'm sticking with gravity feed and vacuum tanks from now on, brother!

[Reatta Man]

Dan and Matt,

Here's another thing to consider before selling a paid-for large car and jumping into a $400++ payment just to get a small car: they are DANGEROUS.

1. People buy small cars even though they can be deadly

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-19-small-cars_N.htm

"If the switch to smaller, lighter vehicles continues to grow, the result could be anywhere from dozens to thousands of traffic deaths that would have been avoided in bigger vehicles, according to fatality records and safety forecasters."

2. IIHS shows deaths per model can be 2-4 times higher in some smaller cars compared to large cars.

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4003.pdf

So keeping your paid-for Buick with its 3.8 IS cheaper in the long run than spending $20-30K just to get a few more miles per gallon.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sky, is that really true that there is no connection between the steering wheel and the tires? That sounds like a ticking liability bomb if ever I heard one. Perhaps the failure was more akin to the power steering belt on your car breaking and leaving you with manual steering only? Wasn't there a recall on Priuses for something in the steering? I don't remember.</div></div>

The steering system on a Prius is a conventional power steering system, except that the power is provided by an electric motor instead of a belt driven pump. The first generation Prius (2000-2003) had the motor mounted down low by the steering rack. the second generation (2004-date, shown) mounted the motor up on the steering shaft.

The recall for Prius steering systems was for a brittle intermediate shaft and yoke that had a rare tendency to snap when shocked while fully extended (like when hitting the curb with the wheel pegged to one side). These shafts were used in 10 models worldwide, however only the Prius among them was sold in the U.S. Less than 30 failures were reported in almost 1 million units, none at all in the U.S. All were replaced.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think a diesel hybrid might be a good idea, however. Combining the advantages of both would increase efficiency even further. </div></div>

Hybrid technology will almost certainly be used in all transportation devices regardless of power source, eventually. It's merely a power conservation and enhancement device.

============================

In the mean time, what are we going to do with all these unused trucks and SUVs? Last night they had a guy on TV who was offered $3000 trade in for a nice 2002 Explorer, and then only reluctantly. People are routinely being offered 1/2 book trade-in or less for anything bigger than a cute-ute.

How bad will it get before perfectly good SUVs are being sold for scrap? $5/gal.? $6/gal.? (It <span style="text-decoration: underline">is</span> coming!)

[Guest Dr. Strangelove]

Is there anyone left in the United States of America that will put America's needs ahead of OPEC?

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dan and Matt,

Here's another thing to consider before selling a paid-for large car and jumping into a $400++ payment just to get a small car: they are DANGEROUS....

2. IIHS shows deaths per model can be 2-4 times higher in some smaller cars compared to large cars.

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4003.pdf

</div></div>

First of all, there are no small hybrids. The Insight was tiny, but it's no longer made. The Civic is nearly a mid-size car, and the Prius, Camry, Altima, and Saturn Aura hybrids are mid-size. Mid-size sedans are the equal of all vehicles in saftey ratings, beating SUVs & trucks and only barely nudged out of first place by minivans and full-size cars (most likely due to average driver differences rather than vehicle safety) in most surveys.

Second, every hybrid have outstanding saftey records in every respect (with the exception of early Priuses' side impact ratings w/o side air bags before they were made standard equipment). All have top marks in IIHS and NHTSA testing.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Finally, broad generalities like this one don't hold water. For instance the very WORST vehicle for driver death rates listed in the very survey Joe cited is the 2001-2004 Chevy Blazer (232 driver deaths per million miles), whereas the 2001-2004 Honda Civic and the 1999-2002 Buick Park Ave have identical numbers (60 driver deaths per million miles).</span> (<span style="font-style: italic">And, it should be pointed out again, the current crop of hybirds are all rated better than either one.</span>)

Nothing's more DANGEROUS than misinformation.

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing's more DANGEROUS than misinformation. </div></div>

Dave, couldn't agree more. In that context, let's look at the numbers for the vehicles you quoted in the entire context. Who drives an older Blazer versus who drives an older LeSabre? What are the risk profiles of the two groups? I submit that the fatality rate of the Blazer has more to do with a "Ya'll hold my beer and watch this!" approach to life than would be the experience of a Civic or LeSabre driver or the relative safety design deficiencies of the Blazer.

When physics is applied to the 'five star' crash ratings, a five star SUV is going to crush your five star Prius. You'll just have deployed air bags to help contain the goo. It's simple Conservation of Momentum (Energy Transfer). Crash ratings are germane in the popular understanding only if you plan on hitting a light pole, tree, or the same model car at predetermined angles and velocities.

More to the point of the discussion, what are the benefits of $4+/gallon gasoline and related petroleum fuel cost? As I see it:

1. Reduced traffic. Already notable in SoCal

2. Will be the catalyst for intellegent redesign of mass transit, suburban planning, and a resurgence of rail transportation.

3. Reduced air traffic congestion, retirement of less efficent aircraft, easing of pressure on the air traffic control system (spelled: reduced cost for system upgrades)

4. Imputus to create truly commuter efficient vehicles. As good as the Syergy Drive system is, it's reliance on a parallel drive system is archaic. Let's get to true internal combustion (IC)/electric using hub mounted traction motors/brakes in a plug in vehicle with a 50 mile operating range. That would address something on the order of 80% of current 'daily trips' without starting the IC motor to turn the generator. Economically viable battery technology is the current constraint, but the designers are closing the gap. The Volt might make it happen.

5. The welcome demise of the Soccer Mom Mobile (Three ton SUV to transport two toddler car seats and a sweaty pre teen). Will anyone but Ahhnold miss the Hummer? Let's send them to Iraq where they're useful.

6. Diesel won't make it here for passenger cars unless the EPA regs are changed for the big five states. Plus, we need the fuel oil to keep warm in the winter.

7. Gas will continue to be the fuel of choice for most long range driving. It is just has too many good things going for it. What we'll have to do is figure out how to make the most of every BTU in a gallon.

8. The current 'oil shortage' is really a reflection of the rising prosperity in the world. This is a good thing. More competion for limited resources will force us to use them more efficently. You can substitue 'food' and 'water' above, also.

9. We're gonna do fine...IF we embrace the opportunity to make positive changes. We always have.

Cheers,

JMC

[Matt Harwood]

Once again, +1 for Mr. Chapman. Well played, sir!

I wonder if I would enjoy driving an electric car as much as my current car. My commute is about 12 miles each way on country roads, so it would be ideal for me. But I sure loves me the sound of dual exhaust. Maybe if a Tesla was $20K instead of $100K...

On the other hand, I can't wait to start taking the train to more places instead of suffering through the air.

[Guest John Chapman]

Ah, the opportunity to learn to love the visceral 'whirrr' and irresistable application of 'instant torque' of a dual diode, synchroniously coupled traction motor. You can also stealthily sneak up on all manner of road scurrying varmits, never possible with a dual exhaust belchfire eight.

Thanks for the kudo.

JMC

[Guest Skyking]

While we are on the gas subject, What's your opinion on this...........?? They say there's enough oil in this country for the next 68 years.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Matt Harwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I wonder if I would enjoy driving an electric car as much as my current car. My commute is about 12 miles each way on country roads, so it would be ideal for me. </div></div>

Matt, seriously, look into a Met, it'd be just as much fun.

[Guest John Chapman]

Sky,

Well here's my thought... your quote of Samuel Clemens is important.

In my opinion, this is an emotional ploy in response pandering to the common warcry of 'make it like it used to be' and wholesale treatment of the symptom rather than the cause. Most of the economically recoverable oil in the US has been tapped. Rising fossel fuel prices and technology improvements will shift this somewhat, but the bottom line is that this site is hawking the old solution. More oil.

We really need to figure out a way to get off the liquid hydorcarbon diet we've been on for a century. Not eliminate it, but reduce it for economic and political reasons. Anything else is only going to prolong the agony, put us at a distinct disadvantage with those that hold the resources, and delay changing our ways for the better.

The best outcome of this is that we become a model for the rest of the world. Even if we cease importing Arab oil, someone else will buy it (China and India) using... US$ from our years of deficit spending (personal and governmental) that those countires finaced by purchasing US Treasury bills. We need to light the way toward energy independence, reducing our reliance on oil (regardless of where it comes from). Allowing oil to rise to a world price will be painful, but will force this corrective 'diet'. A key resource for us is coal. Used to produce electricity it can economically power our plug in hybrid vehicles.

This won't end the conflicts in the Middle East or our involvement, simply because that is about far more than oil, and has been going on for fourteen hundred years. No point in hitching the domestic oil wagon to that star. It's a red herring.

This transition is going to be painful... more to some than others, but it one that we must undertake.

Your mileage may vary....

Cheers,

JMC

[Reatta Man]

John,

Your statement is more to the point that what I was trying to say: <span style="font-weight: bold">

When physics is applied to the 'five star' crash ratings, a five star SUV is going to crush your five star Prius. You'll just have deployed air bags to help contain the goo.</span>

While Dave disagreed with some of the numbers I used, all the airbags in the world can't change the laws of physics.

As for spending $20-30K in order to get better mileage, here's the numbers on how much difference the cost is per week and per month.

200 miles per week, 25 MPG vs 35 MPG,

difference of 2.286 gallons/week,

@ $4/gal, diff is $9.14/week and $39.57/month (4.33 wks per mo)

@ $5/gal, diff is $11.43/week and $49.49/month

200 miles per week, 15 MPG vs 35 MPG,

difference of 7.63 gallons/week,

@ $4/gal, $30.52/week, 132.15/month

@ $5/gal, $38.15/week, $165.19/month

300 miles per week, 25 MPG vs 35 MPG

difference of 3.43 gallons/week,

@ $4/gal $13.72/week, $59.40/month

@ $5/gal $17.15/week, $74.25/month

300 miles per week, 15 MPG vs 35 MPG

difference of 11.43 gallons/week,

@ $4/gal $45.72/week, $197.97/month

@ $5/gal $57.15/week, $247.46/month

This does not include any value for the car being traded in or sold; there are so many variables on that possibility, it is impossible to come to a general number that would fit most scenarios.

However, unless you drive a lot of miles and trade in or park a car/truck with really bad mileage, the fuel savings won't come anywhere near making the monthly payment or repay the capital investment, if the car is paid for in full.

Bottom line is, if you want a car that gets better mileage, get it. But, you can't really justify it <span style="text-decoration: underline"> solely based </span> upon fuel savings unless you amortize the cost over a long period of time.

[Guest John Chapman]

For an intersting look at emotion-driven poor math, read the following:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/20/geo.metro/index.html?iref=newssearch

JMC

[Reatta Man]

John,

'Emotion-driven poor math'--I thought that was the mission statements of American Distress, Visa and Master Card?

And let's not forget Countrywide.......

[Reatta Man]

Nope, sorry, I was wrong.....

After I read the article you linked to, I realized any idiot that spent $7,300 for a 12-year-old piece of crap that uses your knees in place of airbags is definitely emotion-driven poor math!

[Matt Harwood]

It would be nice to believe that there are lifetimes worth of oil on our own soil, but even the most optimistic estimates (either by Exxon or Fox News, take your pick), suggest that at our current rate of consumption, those finds will give us only 1-3 years of oil. That's also assuming that it is economically viable to extract <span style="font-style: italic">all</span> of it, which it never will be.

And seriously, right now there is no shortage of oil. There's plenty to be had and the prices at the pump aren't really reflecting the supply of <span style="font-style: italic">oil</span> vs. demand for it. What current prices reflect is the supply of <span style="font-style: italic">oil futures</span> vs. demand. The cost of producing oil hasn't gone up 300% in the past 4 years. It should still cost around $50/barrel. But investors are buying the oil futures as if they are commodities <span style="font-style: italic">themselves</span>. They don't want the oil the futures represent, they are buying the futures because <span style="font-style: italic">their</span> value is going up, not the oil's. Of course, the price of the futures is the price of oil, but it's 100% artificial (or at least 66% artificial). Bubble? Burst? Who knows? We're seeing the "impossible" burst in the real estate market right this moment.

The oil is still where it's always been. There isn't yet a shortage, but sooner or later there will be. But that day isn't today.

Why drill our own reserves right now when we don't really need it? Let's use up all the middle east's oil and let them go back to herding goats and sqabbling amongst themselves in feudal tribes. As soon as they're out of oil, they're out of play on the world stage. They won't be able to feed their populations, let alone mount terror attacks on us, without the oil money. Their countries will go back to being just deserts--they've refused to develop other viable industries and technology, and won't even get with the 20th century, let alone the 21st. They'll be completely enslaved by their religion without global political power. No, as soon as that last oil well makes the sucking sound of the bottom of a McDonald's milkshake, they're done.

And bear in mind that they'll have to start buying their water from someone...

So why not let them hang and use up their oil first? You want to beat the terrorists? Money, not guns, will win wars in the future. $4/gallon is a lot cheaper and more effective than the war in Iraq.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When physics is applied to the 'five star' crash ratings, a five star SUV is going to crush your five star Prius. You'll just have deployed air bags to help contain the goo. It's simple Conservation of Momentum (Energy Transfer). Crash ratings are germane in the popular understanding only if you plan on hitting a light pole, tree, or the same model car at predetermined angles and velocities.</div></div>

Yet there's that "real world" Chevy Blazer stat, staring you right in the face. Oh, and as for the placid drivers of Honda Civics bringing their averages down relative to the daredevels that drive Park Aves., bear in mind that this guy is included in that analysis:

[Dave@Moon]

Joe, you don't have to do all the math yourself like that. Go to fueleconomy.gov anbd they'll do it all for you.

For instance a Prius vs. an Explorer V8 is a difference of of $2700+ over 15,000 miles under current averages.

If you look at the time between this post and the last one you'll see how quickly you can make these comparisons. They're available accross all models <span style="text-decoration: underline">and</span> model years. You can change mileage driven and gas prices to suit your area/needs as well.

[Reatta Man]

Dave,

I just broke it down because people usually think in terms of cost per week or month when considering a change like this.

Personally, I'm glad I sold my 1984 Olds 98 a few years ago. It was a beautiful car inside and out, but I could only get 19-20 MPG when the air conditioner was off.

Joe

[Durant Mike]

My two cents worth on this. First I think Detroit and the car companies with all their intelligence and computer programs can design a 6 or 8 cylinder engine to get much much more miles per gallon if the wanted to. Second I think the bio diesel is the way for trucks to go since you can make it from many products including soy beans, etc which we can grow as crops and turn into a better fuel source. And third I think we should right now tell the Iraq government that we will take repayment for our cost in freeing their country in oil and have them start repaying us in oil until their debt is payed off. Also Congress needs to find a way to stop the speculators in the future market from jacking this price up. We are already in problems with our economy now and no one seems to care in Washington. Fuel costs are already keeping people at home and from traveling, and when people don't travel, hotels, restaurants etc all hurt. Have you priced a hotel lately. Look at the price of a hotel, if you can find one, for Hershey this fall. $165 plus per night. That is ridiculous for a small hotel room for one night. Couple that with a higher gas bill to get there. Only the rich will be able to afford it. My two cents worth.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skyking</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While we are on the gas subject, What's your opinion on this...........?? They say there's enough oil in this country for the next 68 years. </div></div>

There are plenty of nut cases out there pointing to hills and shorelines all over and saying that Saudi Arabia is underneath them. If it were so, why would anybody be freezing their.....off in Alaska for oil? People <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">want</span></span> this to be a conspiracy, and they'll continue to be taken in by anybody who's skillful enough to play them.

The real stats are plainly available to anyone who looks. There's no reason to hide oil discoveries or claim that oil is not allowed to be exploited where found. It's still a good thing to discover oil somewhere.

It just ain't gonna happen anymore in significant quantities. We burned it all already, so much so that we've upset the stability of planet's climate system. When you're screwing up your planet, maybe it's a good thing you're being made to stop.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: durant28</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My two cents worth on this. First I think Detroit and the car companies with all their intelligence and computer programs can design a 6 or 8 cylinder engine to get much much more miles per gallon if the wanted to. . </div></div>

Well, this is certainly the time to crap or get off the pot!

[Guest Skyking]

John, all good points as usual...........

[GaryC]

You mentioned an "oil shortage" I find this funny, is this oil shortage" like the "oil shortage" in the 70's I mentioned this because I have a brother who was and is a Caption on a tanker during that "oil Shortage of the 70"s" when lines were blocks long.

He was parked outside the cost with his tanker full of oil and nowhere to put it. this "Oil Shortage" in hear not because there is no oil, however only because of the greed in the oil company's and in OPEC. My brother is currently hauling oil in his tanker but at a higher cost.

further noted is that oil is traded on the stock market. and greed is driving the price up as profits are taken.

I have a natural gas powered van I pay 2.64 per gallon.

I spoke to another natural gas user and he told me the price of natural gas in the grate state of Utah is regulated at .68 cents per gallon. I would like to know if this is true and if so how?

[Guest edalfa]

These stories were rampant in the 70's. Wouldn't some pictures have shown up if it were true? There were loads of satellites and consider the tenor of the press after Nixon resigned. No-one was looking to cut Ford or even Carter slack on the energy issue.

As far as changes in the auto industry, it happens. If it hadn't, we might be driving the current equivalent of the curved dash Olds. The industry will reform and come out with better and more appropriate vehicles. The biggest difference is consumer perception of what they need. Once this has changed, the companies that meet this most closely, will be the most successful. We can talk about crash tests, etc. all day long but once downsizing and increased efficiency become a fact of life(again), what a Ford Excursion could do to a (fill in the blank) will become irrelevant.

The fact that the F-series was the best selling vehicle and has been supplanted by Honda et al is more of a comentary on the moribundity of Ford than anything else.

Ed

[Reatta Man]

As for Detroit being able to build an engine that gets better mileage, that is really more speculation based upon emotion and past conspiracy theories than fact. (Just Google the phrase '200 MPG carburetor' and you'll see what I mean when it comes to conspiracy theories)

Look at it like this; if you were the chief engineer at GM, Ford or Chrysler and you saw your company losing market share every day and knew how to get better mileage than any other car company on the planet, would you hold back? NO! They would make you president of the company almost overnight.

Just imagine GM introducing a 50-65 MPG Chevy Cobalt or Pontiac G5. They sure wouldn't have to have a $1000-2000 rebate on them to sell them! And, GM would be back to having 50-55% of the domestic car market OVERNIGHT! Ditto for a Ford Focus or Chrysler Sebring that suddenly had 30-50% better mileage.

The laws of physics dictate mileage here. You can't get past the fact that the best air/fuel ratio is about 14/1. And, it takes a certain amount of power to move a given amount of weight, with that requirement for power going up or down based upon drag, and the time inwhich you want that weight to get up to a certain speed. So, you can't put a 4-cylinder engine in a 6,000 SUV or pickup truck. It will be slow, overworked, and not meet the car maker's requirements for longevity. AND, it won't sell!

We've made pretty much all the advances we can with engines; computers and fuel injection have given us Impalas and Lesabres that get 30MPG on the highway. Even when you look at all these new engines that have come out lately, they don't get any better mileage than the Buick-designed 3.8 OHV V-6.

Fuel injectors mounted on a rail in the intake manifold are not as efficient as possible; there is a small amount of fuel that is lost when the fuel spray hits the hot intake valve. Some manufacturers are just starting to perfect and use direct injection into the cylinder, but once that is being used across the board in gas engines, they are about as efficient as they are going to get. You MUST either reduce weight or engine size or both to increase MPG unless you go to a hybrid system or another fuel.

So, the most basic understanding of how an engine works requires you to dismiss rumors or hearsay about 'miracle engines that are being kept off the market.' It is an emotionally-appealing arguement, but not one you can back up with facts.

Joe

[Guest John Chapman]

There's always the guy who's an exception that proves the rule. I'm not at odds with the stat... I'm at odds with the interpretation of the stat, a less than subtle distinction. Sort of like 'it's settled' with regards to AGW, when obviously it's not, at least to those who're paying attention and not reliant on winning additional grant money to continue proving that they've found the source of all enviromental evil.

So, anyway, to ignore the operator's mind set and operating environment while interpreting stats is naive, yes?

Sort of like comparing aircraft accident rates between Navy tactical jets and commercial airliners.

Cheers,

JMC

[Dave@Moon]

I'm afraid you've lost me there, John. Are you trying to say that all information is biased and therefore useless?

[Guest John Chapman]

No, Dave, and I really think you understood.

My point: Taking correct information and applying it with faulty logic results in faulty conclusions.

JMC

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John Chapman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, Dave, and I really think you understood.

My point: Taking correct information and applying it with faulty logic results in faulty conclusions.

JMC

</div></div>

Are you then implying that I used faulty logic? Have I used any logic? I think I've pretty much kept a Dragnet/Sgt. Friday approach to the whole discussion here.

Pointing out facts that contradict the logic of others is not exactly a submission/substitution of another logic form. I allow the reader to draw their own conclusions (I hope).

If someone says that "big cars" like their Buick are safer than "small cars" like a Honda Civic and cite an exhaustive survey of evidence that includes the observation that both cars have identical saftey records by the measure that they used to present the argument, pointing that out is not the same as saying that there's no difference between the cars. It merely refutes the original argument. Likewise pointing out that of the two the Honda is far more likely to be owned by an "adverturous driver", and that the most unsafe vehicle in the survey was a "big" mid-size SUV, simply supports the initial refutation.

=====================

As to your point on the death of the soccer-mom-mobile, I couldn't agree more. I just returned from a mid-size Britsh car show in Louisville, KY (~250 cars). It's sponsored every year in part by the local Jaguar/Land Rover dealer, who puts up a display of the latest models every year. In past years people generally swarmed the place, and the new cars were frequently seen going on test drives during the course of the show.

We (TR6s) were set up right next door to them this year. I honestly don't think they gave away a single brochure. Who in their right mind would buy a 12 mpg (<span style="font-style: italic">EPA est. listed on the largest Range Rover</span>) vehicle today (that didn't have to)?

[charlier]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to your point on the death of the soccer-mom-mobile, I couldn't agree more. I just returned from a mid-size Britsh car show in Louisville, KY (~250 cars). It's sponsored every year in part by the local Jaguar/Land Rover dealer, who puts up a display of the latest models every year. In past years people generally swarmed the place, and the new cars were frequently seen going on test drives during the course of the show.

We (TR6s) were set up right next door to them this year. I honestly don't think they gave away a single brochure. Who in their right mind would buy a 12 mpg (<span style="font-style: italic">EPA est. listed on the largest Range Rover</span>) vehicle today (that didn't have to)? </div></div>

This brings up an interesting question.....

As some automakers and dealers face slower sales going forward will their support of auto events like this one decrease and/or disappear??

Hopefully, auto events will be mindful of this and seek out other types of support for their events.