Gasoline prices: How high will it go?

[Smokey]

On my last trip to gas station, the prices were around $2.50 a gallon. And they say it will be around 3.00 when summer travel season comes around.

Are we destined to be like European where they got used to price of $5 a gallon, and have to live with it. With most people in USA living in the suburb and commuting long distances to go work or do daily choirs, that might be a hard pill to swallow.

<img src="http://www.sunocoinc.com/market/images/sunoco_gas_station.jpg">

[paul_pci]

Paid $2.60 today. Yes, we're spoiled, but the prices are still ridiculous. The typical analogy to Europe is false because they have a superbly competent mass transit system and centralized populations. For someone like me, in LA, mass transit isn't feasible, like it or not. Ridiculous.

[shokhead]

They still have to buy gas in Europe and they have had gas over 3 bucks for years. I dont even pay attention to the price,i just fill up and go. I do feel bad for the truckers.

[PAT.P]

Here in Canada the price goes up and down 79 to 92 a litre during the day and we still need to buy it no matter the price.Opec runs the output around the world in the production ,the producer pocket the profit and spot sells for future production and consumer pay at the pump.At least were not as bad off than Europe.Pat.P

[topspeed]

You should feel lucky Smoke, here in Cali we've been at $2.98 for over a month. Unfortunately, both of my vehicles take premium so we're pretty well screwed. Latest estimates are they will keep climbing through the summer. Our only hope is the newly approved Alaska project will lessen the burden, but we won't see the benefits for quite awhile.

Oh yeah, regardless of what the spin doctors at petroleum producers state on why the prices are so high, they are currently posting record profits and have been every quarter for over 2 years. Coincidence?

The bottom line is that America is completely dependent on gas. As another poster noted, we don't have the infrastructure for mass transit and we're simply too spread out. If you want a classic example of "urban sprawl," go to Tucson. I was there a few weeks ago and it literally took me 45 minutes to get from the airport to my hotel, with no traffic, and I was still in the city! It was completely absurd! They charge the prices they do because we'll pay it...period.

Believe it or not, there are some upsides to the escalating price of gas. We could see a serious acceleration of development of hybrids such as the Lexus RX400h (268hp, 31city/29hwy) or Honda Accord hybrid (255hp, 29city/37hwy). In both cases, these are the most powerful, quickest, yet most fuel efficient variants of each model.

The other advantage is that is could force auto manufacturers to start seriously considering importation of some the wickedly cool cars that Europe enjoys but we don't. I for one would love to see something like the Ford StreetKa make it over the pond.
http://www.allsportauto.com/photoautre5/ford/streetka/conceptcar/2001_ford_street_Ka_02_sb.jpg

[shokhead]

If you have any kind of a newer car,you dont have to use premo,your computer will reset for 89 or 87.

[paul_pci]

Topspeed, do you actually believe that Alaska oil drilling BS? The most immediate and plausible technology to reduce oil dependence burdens is to improve the gas efficiency in cars across the board, but there's too much money wrapped up in the whole auto/oil industry, on top of the fact we haven't had a government supporting public consumer interests in long, long time. Let me use a really bad analogy. What if someone could make cocaine that kept somebody high for 5 hours instead of 45minutes? What do you think would happen to the volume of cocaine imported to the U.S.? It would go down dramatically, and you'd have a lot of people from the growers to the processors to the importers to the street dealers who'd be real pissed off. As I indicated, the government isn't interested in promoting the general welfare of the citizenry, as stated in the Constitution, but would rather consolidate their power through pumping money to wealthy oil industry producers, et al. That's what Alaska is about.

[topspeed]

If you have any kind of a newer car,you dont have to use premo,your computer will reset for 89 or 87.
Your computer will retard spark and compensate to deter premature detonation. This doesn't mean it likes it or is good for it. An engine designed to run on 91 octane but forced to use lower octane gas is not only inviting "knock" but may also void your warranty is some situations. This is not to be confused with fact that using higher octane gas in cars designed to run on regular will increase horsepower, because it won't. It just makes your bank account drain faster.


Topspeed, do you actually believe that Alaska oil drilling BS? The most immediate and plausible technology to reduce oil dependence burdens is to improve the gas efficiency in cars across the board, but there's too much money wrapped up in the whole auto/oil industry, on top of the fact we haven't had a government supporting public consumer interests in long, long time...As I indicated, the government isn't interested in promoting the general welfare of the citizenry, as stated in the Constitution, but would rather consolidate their power through pumping money to wealthy oil industry producers, et al
Without getting into a political debate on this, let's just say I don't share your cynism. To wit, the statement about us not having a government supporting public consumer interests is rather hard for me to swallow. How do think our gas prices were so low in the first place? Euro's have been paying frightening rates for their gas for decades, yet it was only until a few years ago that prices rapidly escalated to the point where we are now. The price was artifically held down by our government because the fact of the matter is that Americans love to drive their big trucks and SUV's. I'm not condemning us, in fact I have an SUV as well, I'm just willing to pay the price without blaming our government for it. If you want to point the finger at someone, point it at the market that makes trucks the top three selling vehicles in the US with the F150 selling over twice as many vehicles as the best selling car, the Camry.

[Geoffcin]

Without getting into a political debate on this, let's just say I don't share your cynism. To wit, the statement about us not having a government supporting public consumer interests is rather hard for me to swallow. How do think our gas prices were so low in the first place? Euro's have been paying frightening rates for their gas for decades, yet it was only until a few years ago that prices rapidly escalated to the point where we are now. The price was artifically held down by our government because the fact of the matter is that Americans love to drive their big trucks and SUV's. I'm not condemning us, in fact I have an SUV as well, I'm just willing to pay the price without blaming our government for it. If you want to point the finger at someone, point it at the market that makes trucks the top three selling vehicles in the US with the F150 selling over twice as many vehicles as the best selling car, the Camry.

In Europe gasoline is taxed massively. They use the tax to keep up the excellent mass trasportation system that they use. In France TGV trains regularly go well over 200mph, and you can get nearly anywhere in that country in less than 3 hrs by them. The fastest I've EVER gone on land was on the Eurostar, and that was a cool 300kph (195mph) and the ride was smooth as silk. In England, buses go everywhere, and they are cheap! We've just about abandoned our public trasportation system. I give you the grounding if the Acella train, our fastest as an example, and the near bankruptcy of Amtrac. The last ride I took into NYC on the train was more like a ride at a 6 Flags amusment park.

The real simple facts are that gasoline costs approximatly ~70c a gallon to make; From pumping the oil out of the ground, to refining it, to delivering it to the pump. Anthing more than that is either profit or tax. So, if they are charging you $3 a gallon, and the tax is 50c, then fully $1.80 of every gallon your buying is profit. No wonder the oil companies are reporting record profits!

[Justlisten2]

I said NT! ;)

[Smokey]

Thanks guys for the shared experiences. The way it is going, we might be in it for the long haul. I have read about Europe excellent mass transit system. But can mass transit work here since we are so spread out over long distances.


Euro's have been paying frightening rates for their gas for decades, yet it was only until a few years ago that prices rapidly escalated to the point where we are now. The price was artifically held down by our government because the fact of the matter is that Americans love to drive their big trucks and SUV's.

Another factor that have contributed to recent high oil prices might be that China and India economy have started to consume tremendous amount of energy to feed their growing economy. I also have read a report stating that prices will continue to rise well after 2010, and then it might level off.

So we may have to look forward to few more years of rising oil prices :)

[shokhead]

Your computer will retard spark and compensate to deter premature detonation. This doesn't mean it likes it or is good for it. An engine designed to run on 91 octane but forced to use lower octane gas is not only inviting "knock" but may also void your warranty is some situations. This is not to be confused with fact that using higher octane gas in cars designed to run on regular will increase horsepower, because it won't. It just makes your bank account drain faster.



Without getting into a political debate on this, let's just say I don't share your cynism. To wit, the statement about us not having a government supporting public consumer interests is rather hard for me to swallow. How do think our gas prices were so low in the first place? Euro's have been paying frightening rates for their gas for decades, yet it was only until a few years ago that prices rapidly escalated to the point where we are now. The price was artifically held down by our government because the fact of the matter is that Americans love to drive their big trucks and SUV's. I'm not condemning us, in fact I have an SUV as well, I'm just willing to pay the price without blaming our government for it. If you want to point the finger at someone, point it at the market that makes trucks the top three selling vehicles in the US with the F150 selling over twice as many vehicles as the best selling car, the Camry.

Wont hurt the car and wont void any warr.

[paul_pci]

Thanks guys for the shared experiences. The way it is going, we might be in it for the long haul. I have read about Europe excellent mass transit system. But can mass transit work here since we are so spread out over long distances.



Another factor that have contributed to recent high oil prices might be that China and India economy have started to consume tremendous amount of energy to feed their growing economy. I also have read a report stating that prices will continue to rise well after 2010, and then it might level off.

So we may have to look forward to few more years of rising oil prices :)

Mass transit will not be the cure-all here for many people because of their type of work. I used to tutor and I was driving all over the LA area, and there's no way mass transit could replace that. My father's a contractor and has a few trucks, some with trailers to go to the jobs all over CA, AZ, NV, etc. and again, no way to replace that type of work with mass transit. For people who go to one job at one location, once a day, mass transit will work, but our culture and economy are evolving in such a way that more and more people would not benefit from mass transit in their daily lives.

[jeskibuff]

Wont hurt the car and wont void any warr.Knocking (premature detonation) most certainly is bad for an engine. Just because it sounds like a harmless pinging noise from your vantage point doesn't mean it's not doing any damage.


Mass transit will not be the cure-all here for many people because of their type of work.Just look at the government-run Amtrak to see how public funds get washed down the drain to support mass transit that not enough people are interested in. Also, Greyhound just announced that they will no longer be serving many podunk towns in the southwest U.S. (Arizona & New Mexico, as I recall). So even private-run mass transit is struggling to find enough takers, although Greyhound probably isn't used much for normal commuting to work.

You really need densely populated cities to take advantage of mass transit. New York City subways, the DC Metro and Chicago's El undoubtedly have enough ridership to maintain profitability and enough coverage to be convenient for most riders. Does anyone know how Miami's system is faring?

[shokhead]

Less octane rating and you computer will adjust and it will not knock and therefore,will not hurt the car. Thats one of the things the computer will do for a car. If unleaded premiun is not available,unleaded regular with an octane rating of at least 87 can be used.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

For the first time in my life I paid $3.01 a gallon. It has been pretty close to this before, but here in the bay area we are used to paying more for gas than anyone in the country. However being the smart forward thinking person that I am(how is that for blowing your own horn!) I bought a Honda Insight Hybrid for a everyday commuter car, so I filled up my tank and it only cost me about $25.00. Since my car gets about 55mpg in the city, that tank of gas will last me about 7-10 days of normal commuting.

I don't think we should be complaining one bit about the price of gas. Americans for years now have purchased gas guzzling SUV's and that has contributed much to how much fuel this country uses. If we want to bring the price of gas down, we have to use less of it. My Insight has more than paid for itself in saving me money on fuel prices. I have decided that I will always have at least one hybrid car(I am ordering another Insight at the end of this year) in my garage. If more people owned them, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

[Duds]

I don't care how much the Euros have been paying for gas, we dont live over there. It's ridiculous for anyone to say we should suck it up and pay this much for gas. Many poeple dont have the funds to go out and purchase a hunk of junk hybrid vehicle either, that's giving in to these riduclous pricess even more.

[kexodusc]

Here in Canada they report the cost of gas as being about 1/3 of the price at the pumps, the rest is taxes...though that's slowly being given back to lower-tiers of government...
I don't mind paying taxes for the well being of a country, but do you guys really think if the taxes were reduced that prices would drop?
Oil prices aren't a funtion of costs, as much as they are the desire to maximize revenues. The cost relation is a poor excuse the oil companies feed the public, and one that we buy.

[topspeed]

Less octane rating and you computer will adjust and it will not knock and therefore,will not hurt the car. Thats one of the things the computer will do for a car. If unleaded premiun is not available,unleaded regular with an octane rating of at least 87 can be used.
You're right, 87 can be used. The question is, should it be used? A computer will adjust to prevent knock, but it can only adjust so far. Pure gas is highly combustible, therefore producers actually add or "dope" the gas to reduce the octane ratings. If you run 87 in a car designed for 91, the computer will compensate as much as possible to deter premature detonation, however you will still have left over doping agents that will form contaminants such as carbon deposits. These deposits then cling to the valves, plugs, etc. Over time, the deposits will have a dramatic effect on the efficiency and performance of your engine. With the correct fuel, the computer is working to optimize spark, air/fuel mixture, etc. to provide optimal performance. With the incorrect fuel, the computer is compensating to make sure the damn thing doesn't detonate. Which sounds better to you?

Think of it this way; everyone knows that the more efficient a speaker is, the better. A 95dB/1w/1m speaker has distinct advantages over a 85dB/1w/1m speaker, not the least of which is that you have far more options with amplifiers and/or it presents a far easier burden for your current amp. So why doesn't every engineer design hi-efficiency speakers? Because the sound is the most important thing. Same thing with engines. It's not like engineers are trying to design engines that run on 91 instead of 87. However, if you're going to squeeze 333hp out of a 3.2L I6, compromises will be made. One of them is that it has to run on 91.

If you want to run 87 on an engine designed for 91, go for it. I'll stick to specs.

[BRANDONH]

On my last trip to gas station, the prices were around $2.50 a gallon. And they say it will be around 3.00 when summer travel season comes around.

Are we destined to be like European where they got used to price of $5 a gallon, and have to live with it. With most people in USA living in the suburb and commuting long distances to go work or do daily choirs, that might be a hard pill to swallow.

<img src="http://www.sunocoinc.com/market/images/sunoco_gas_station.jpg">

I drive a VW Beetle diesel and get 51 to 52 MPG.

http://www.dieselforum.org/news/april_07_2004.html

Considering this, diesel vehicles provide an increasingly attractive option for American drivers. Take a look at the benefits:

* Despite the concurrent rise in diesel fuel prices, diesel vehicles are much more fuel efficient, typically getting 20-40 percent more miles to the gallon than a comparable gasoline car.
* Diesel's efficiency helps reduce dependence on foreign oil. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a 30 percent market penetration of diesel vehicles by 2020 would reduce U.S. net crude oil imports by 350,000 barrels per day.
* Diesel cars provide superior power and performance to most gasoline cars, an important feature for American drivers.
* Diesels burn less fuel, so they emit much smaller levels of carbon dioxide - a contributor to global warming - compared to gasoline.

[jeskibuff]

do you guys really think if the taxes were reduced that prices would drop?You betcha! All you have to do to prove this is to drive from one state to the next. When I drive I-95, I try to ensure that when I cross into Georgia my tank is near empty. Just before leaving Georgia, I make sure I tank up. There, the tax per gallon is $.306 according to this chart (http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html). Go north into South Carolina and you jump up to $.352, but go south into Florida and you're paying $.48 per gallon! The difference is noticeable at the pumps! Because of competition with Georgia, the prices across the border (into Florida) might be a little cheaper than further into the state, but not by much. It may be cheaper for a Floridian who lives near the border to cross into Georgia when his tank nears empty. Cigarettes are also a good example of taxes affecting price. There's a lot of border crossing into states with low tobacco taxes for such purchases.


Oil prices aren't a funtion of costs, as much as they are the desire to maximize revenues.Maximize revenues? Who's the big profit-takers here? If in Canada you're paying 2/3rds to the government, I'd say someone's making some nice profit, far more than the oil companies! It's just much more fun and convenient to blame "evil corporations" than your benevolent government though, isn't it?


The cost relation is a poor excuse the oil companies feed the public, and one that we buy.But you seem to have bought into the "pay us some whopping taxes and you'll get it all back" excuse that your government has given you. European gas has always been much more expensive than U.S. gasoline. Why is that? They're much closer to the major oil suppliers, so it should be cheaper, shouldn't it? Well, once again the governments tax gasoline to death! There's a direct correlation between taxes and cost.


Diesel cars provide superior power and performance to most gasoline carsI've never driven a diesel vehicle that wasn't a dog as far as performance is concerned. For power and performance, give me gas-powered ANY DAY!


Diesels burn less fuel, so they emit much smaller levels of carbon dioxideBut diesels emit much more particulate matter. They are worse polluters than gas and harder to clean up, from what I understand.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't care how much the Euros have been paying for gas, we dont live over there. It's ridiculous for anyone to say we should suck it up and pay this much for gas. Many poeple dont have the funds to go out and purchase a hunk of junk hybrid vehicle either, that's giving in to these riduclous pricess even more.

You don't have a choice but to suck it up and pay. Calling hybrids a hunk of junk does not make the price go down either, it just makes you a part of the problem and not the solution. If you want to keep your attitude, then by all means pop out that fat wallet and continue to throw dead presidents at the gas pump. Keep in mind, the people in New Delhi and Bejing don't care one bit about your *****ing about the price of gas. And some prince in Saudi Arabia isn't going to feel sorry for you and offer you a discount price. Your arrogance has a price, and now you are paying it.

[kexodusc]

Before you get too condescending and offend some people, I'll let you know now that I'm a US citizen working for US Investment Management firm in Canada...When you say "my benevolent government", it's a bit of a stretch (though the boys back home aren't exactly saints)...but I think you are grossly mislead about the tax levels of Canada relative the USA (though the gas tax is pretty high).

That being said...


Maximize revenues? Who's the big profit-takers here? If in Canada you're paying 2/3rds to the government, I'd say someone's making some nice profit, far more than the oil companies! It's just much more fun and convenient to blame "evil corporations" than your benevolent government though, isn't it?

Hey, Government is trying to maximize revenue to provide for it's services too...to the point it doesn't interfere with the economy...Considering the current fiscal shape these Canadians are in relative to W and Greenspan, I'd say they're on to something.

I'm responsible for the Oil and Gas/Pipelines and Utilities sectors for my firm's portfolio...I also concentrate on the use of derivatives by firms we hold positions in...wanna explain to me why the oil companies can lock in or hedge the purchases of oil prices at a fixed level for 3, 6, 9, 18 months into the future and yet claim they're costs are subject to "weekly fluctuations of the price of crude"...that's BS and I think you know it!
Some basic finance for ya: there's two ways to increase your profits (which I'm all for in a competitive market - just don't think Oil is competitive market - and I blame Government for that)you minimize costs, or maximize revenues...they're doing all they can on the cost side like any good business should...when the price of crude goes up (a very small portion of the total cost at the pumps) they're quick to adjust the prices up...why? It's an easy sell - people complain, but what else do they do?

When oil drops they take a bit longer, but they'll lower the price at the pump too - keeps them out of anti-trust suits.


But you seem to have bought into the "pay us some whopping taxes and you'll get it all back" excuse that your government has given you. European gas has always been much more expensive than U.S. gasoline. Why is that? They're much closer to the major oil suppliers, so it should be cheaper, shouldn't it? Well, once again the governments tax gasoline to death! There's a direct correlation between taxes and cost.
Way to state the obvious...a tax by definition is correlated...but clearly you've chosen to accept a false cause-and-effect relationship.

Here's something for you to think about...Canada is a much smaller country in terms of economy and people and yet, here in New Brunswick where gas is on the higher side of the things in Canada, the price per litre is $0.947 CAD...that works out to, wow, $2.98 USD/gallon (give or take a penny). If the Canadian government is cutting 2/3's, we can easily deduce that $1 USD is going to the oil companies...At $2.50 per gallon back home, if we subtract the 0.48/gallon for taxes in some states and we're left with $1.52 in the USA...seems kinda odd don't ya think? With 300 million of us, we can't deliver gas cheaper before taxes than Canada? Hmmm....can't imagine why...

[jeskibuff]

If we want to bring the price of gas down, we have to use less of it.Exactly. The simple laws of supply and demand apply.


My Insight has more than paid for itself in saving me money on fuel prices.A bit of an exaggeration, eh, Sir TtT?

By my calculations, if your Honda cost about $20K (let's say you got a deal at $19K, including taxes and fees) and you've been paying an average of $2.30/gallon (not the recent $3), you would have had to put about 454,000 miles on it to pay $19,000 in gasoline costs. But in order to properly figure savings, you'd have to factor in an alternative method of transportation. Say you previously drove a vehicle that got only 20 MPG. It still would take you about 260,000 miles to get a differential in cost equivalent to the purchase price of the Honda. I tried to pick some conservative numbers to accentuate your savings, but still...have you put that many miles on it already?


I have decided that I will always have at least one hybrid car(I am ordering another Insight at the end of this year) in my garage. If more people owned them, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.I'm sure many more people would want them if they weren't so ugly. In my opinion, the tear-drop shaped Honda is particularly unsightly. Still, with the current gas prices the hybrids are selling like hotcakes despite the looks! But beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I bet you just love yours, don't you Sir TtT? :D

I can see some good things coming out of these high gas prices. First of all, it's nice to see SUV sales declining. I'm not so much opposed to SUVs for their gas guzzling as I am the fact that their drivers are the worst on the road. More than other vehicles, they hog the left lane. They change lanes without looking. Their drivers are usually busy doing everything else but paying attention to the road. If high gas prices get more of these rolling living rooms off the road, it can only be a good thing for the rest of us!

Secondly, I hear talk of pressuring traffic engineers to get signals properly timed so that traffic flows more efficiently. How many times have you waited at a traffic light waiting to make a left turn, the light turns green and only 2 cars make it through before it changes to yellow? There are so many intersections like that. How many times a day do you sit at a red light seeing absolutely NO traffic going in the direction that has the green light? How much gas is wasted sitting at intersections like that, not to mention the wear-and-tear your vehicle gets from the stop-and-go driving? Let's get our roads up to their full potential for moving traffic! Let's get rid of the bottlenecks caused by lower-than-they-should-be speed limits. Stop-and-go driving at 40MPH uses much more gas than does traffic moving over 65MPH, plus it prematurely wears out both your car and the road surface and increases the likelihood of collisions.


Despite the concurrent rise in diesel fuel prices, diesel vehicles are much more fuel efficient, typically getting 20-40 percent more miles to the gallon than a comparable gasoline car.
* Diesel's efficiency helps reduce dependence on foreign oil. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a 30 percent market penetration of diesel vehicles by 2020 would reduce U.S. net crude oil imports by 350,000 barrels per day.
* Diesel cars provide superior power and performance to most gasoline cars, an important feature for American drivers.
* Diesels burn less fuel, so they emit much smaller levels of carbon dioxide - a contributor to global warming - compared to gasoline.

Some interesting things from http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/04-12/diesel-vs-gasoline-article.htm


In Europe...about 40% of new cars sold are diesel, amounting to more than five million vehicles each year. The demand for diesel in Europe is fueled by the high cost of gasoline. (Unequal taxation of the two fuels results in diesel costing about one dollar less per gallon in most European countries.)
.
.
Thanks to its higher energy content and its efficient combustion process, diesel performance enables cars to travel at least 30% farther on a gallon of fuel than comparable gasoline models.

The improved efficiency of diesel engines can also help reduce oil consumption. It should be noted, however, that it takes about 25% more oil to make a gallon of diesel fuel than a gallon of gasoline, so we should really look at how a vehicle does on fuel efficiency in terms of "oil equivalents." Thus, we need to adjust the mileage claims for diesel vehicles downward by about 20% when comparing them to gasoline-powered vehicles.
.
.
Because of their lower per-mile fuel consumption, diesel engines generally release less carbon dioxide---the heat-tapping gas primarily responsible for global warming---from the tailpipe. So that's a check on the good side of the pollution chart. But when it comes to smog-forming pollutants and toxic particulate matter, also known as soot, today's diesels are still a lot dirtier than the average gasoline car.
.
.
All this means that diesel pollution can be deadly, causing premature mortality through cancer or heart and respiratory illnesses. The California Air Resources Board has concluded that diesel soot is responsible for 70% of the state's risk of cancer from airborne toxics. In the population as a whole, studies have shown a 26% increase in mortality in people living in soot-polluted cities.
.
.
diesel fuel's advantages from its higher per-gallon energy content and better performance on greenhouse gases are partially offset by the impact of diesel's fuel-production process.
.
.
Technologies are being developed that can make diesel much cleaner and more fuel-efficient. But those advances have to be compared to continuing advancements in gasoline-powered vehicles.
.
.
there is no mandate to bring back diesel in a big way---gasoline-powered cars, particularly gasoline-electric hybrids, are likely the best way to go.

[jeskibuff]

Before you get too condescending and offend some people, I'll let you know now that I'm a US citizen working for US Investment Management firm in Canada...When you say "my benevolent government", it's a bit of a stretch (though the boys back home aren't exactly saints)...but I think you are grossly mislead about the tax levels of Canada relative the USA (though the gas tax is pretty high).Hey, you're the one who stated the 2/3 take that Canada takes. The chart I linked to (with data from 2002) shows the average TOTAL (state & federal) tax per gallon as $.42. Back in 2002, I was paying about $1.30/gal for 87 octane. That's less than 1/3 (.32).


Hey, Government is trying to maximize revenue to provide for it's services too...to the point it doesn't interfere with the economy...Considering the current fiscal shape these Canadians are in relative to W and Greenspan, I'd say they're on to something.Yup, everyone wants a cut of the pie. Unfortunately, government takes what they want whereas you have some competition in the private sector.


wanna explain to me why the oil companies can lock in or hedge the purchases of oil prices at a fixed level for 3, 6, 9, 18 months into the future and yet claim they're costs are subject to "weekly fluctuations of the price of crude"...that's BS and I think you know it!I have no doubt that people will use every excuse to maximize their profit potential. If there's an underlying reason for a price hike, for sure someone will pad the numbers to their advantage to increase their margins. It only makes sense that the reverse will occur, trimming back a little on their price when they get a big reduction in their costs. It's just human nature...to be expected from people who want to take advantage of their position. It occurs at EVERY level of business though...not just oil. When we get perfect people running things, we'll get perfect correlations between cost and price.


Way to state the obvious...a tax by definition is correlated...but clearly you've chosen to accept a false cause-and-effect relationship.Hey, you're the one who said earlier: "do you guys really think if the taxes were reduced that prices would drop?" I was just proving to you that YES...the price drops when the tax drops!


here in New Brunswick where gas is on the higher side of the things in Canada, the price per litre is $0.947 CAD...that works out to, wow, $2.98 USD/gallon (give or take a penny). If the Canadian government is cutting 2/3's, we can easily deduce that $1 USD is going to the oil companies...At $2.50 per gallon back home, if we subtract the 0.48/gallon for taxes in some states and we're left with $1.52 in the USA...seems kinda odd don't ya think? With 300 million of us, we can't deliver gas cheaper before taxes than Canada? Hmmm....can't imagine why...Your whole calculation is dependent on what sounds like hearsay to begin with. Do you have any sources for the 2/3 figure? If that is inaccurate, your whole thesis falls apart. Also consider that the chart I linked to dates back to 2002. While the proportions are probably pretty much intact 3 years later (Florida is still much pricier than Georgia as of my last trip at Christmastime), I imagine state and federal tax levels have probably risen...still nowhere close to 67%!

Now an interesting point concerning the price of gas in New Brunswick, Canuckistan...has it recently skyrocketed as it has here in the states? I mean, if so many people like to blame Bush for gas prices, how do they reconcile the increase in Canadian prices? And doesn't Canada have quite a lot of oil production, especially in Alberta?

[Smokey]

If we want to bring the price of gas down, we have to use less of it.

That probably will help save the owner some money, but it might not be a cure all solution as supply and demand equation well goes beyond USA borders. It is a world wide epidemic. If prices are fixed by OPEC, it doesn't effect the price of a gallon whether we buy one million or 5 million barrels of oil.

But I agree that every little bit help even if prices stay the same. For example, my employer just bought a SUV and his wife bought one too, with no kids living at house. And those SUVs are a gas guzzlers just looking their large tires.

Also as somebody else mentioned, it takes about 25% more oil to make a gallon of diesel fuel than a gallon of gasoline, and the pollution factor might not make diesel fuel and attractive alternative.

So the only concrete solution might to look at other alternative energy sources such as natural gas, agriculture bi-products or electricity :)

[shokhead]

Gas isnt going down. Gas prices will go up. There's plenty of gas and oil and if you think not, well i have a bag full of dog cr$p i'll sell ya. They will add taxes before they take any away. Bottom line is most of the world needs gas to drive and if you need something,the prices will go up. I thought even/odd plates for gas was fun.

[kexodusc]

I have no doubt that people will use every excuse to maximize their profit potential. If there's an underlying reason for a price hike, for sure someone will pad the numbers to their advantage to increase their margins. It only makes sense that the reverse will occur, trimming back a little on their price when they get a big reduction in their costs. It's just human nature...to be expected from people who want to take advantage of their position. It occurs at EVERY level of business though...not just oil. When we get perfect people running things, we'll get perfect correlations between cost and price.
That's exactly my point Jeskibuff...Consumers are well aware of the increases in Crude and the inevitable hikes at the pump, but when the reverse happens, it's never front page news, the consumer has become complacent, and accepts the new, high price of gas (although grudgingly)...there's less downward pressure from the demand side. The supply side is artificially controlled.

A man has an empty tank and $20 in his pocket, he decides he's gonna spend that $20 on gas. Now say while on his, George W. Bush announces some crazy gas tax...the man still spends $20 on gas. Economics dictates the man should be willing to buy less gas at higher prices, but in reality, gas consumption keeps increasing, despite fuel efficiencies.

I think we're on the same page now...I didn't blame "the big bad oil companies for anything", they gotta do what they gotta do...And while the oil companies get rich, so do the millions of Americans who's retirement and savings plan include oil investments...

Interesting that you accept a corporation trying to price gouge, but seem to have a bit of contempt when the gouging comes from a government. Personally, I dont' like being ripped-off by either
Don't like gas prices, buy stocks in oil companies...



Hey, you're the one who said earlier: "do you guys really think if the taxes were reduced that prices would drop?" I was just proving to you that YES...the price drops when the tax drops! Yes you're right, in my haste I didn't qualify my earlier statement with "directly proportional to the drop in taxes"...i'll accept some slight oversight on my part in my hasty statement.
However, my statements still hold. Prices are set to maximize revenue...a decrease on the other side of the equation has no direct effect on the point where revenues are maximized. No company deliberately chooses to NOT maximize revenue..

Gas has become a pseudo-necessity, where supply and demand,and even competition aren't always working in favor of the consumer.


Now an interesting point concerning the price of gas in New Brunswick, Canuckistan...has it recently skyrocketed as it has here in the states? I mean, if so many people like to blame Bush for gas prices, how do they reconcile the increase in Canadian prices? And doesn't Canada have quite a lot of oil production, especially in Alberta?
No prices here have been reasonably stable over the past 6 months or so, a slight spike when Oil reached the all-time high ...I think the price of gas in the USA has more to do with the weak dollar that Bush is being blamed for (I don't think a Democrat president would have done any better) raising the import costs...this allows the companies to let everyone know that oil is costing more, so expectations are softened, and price hikes are a bit more palatable. New expectations, increase the figure for revenue maximization.
Have the hikes been directly proportional to the increase in Crude?

As for Canuckistan...are you trying to be derogatory or funny, and to which audience?

[cam]

Hey Kex, 94.7 is a deal. Over here on the west coast our price is 105.9/liter in the morning, for about an hour in the afternoon it drops to 99.9 and then just in time for the evening rush it goes back up to 105.9.

[kexodusc]

That's too bad, Cam...I did a bit more research on the Canadian tax levels...they vary by province...according to Esso (division of Exxon, www.esso.ca) 40-50% of the price at the pumps includes a direct gas tax...there's double and even triple taxing going on...On the east cost, some provinces have a gas surcharge of 8% (Harmonized Sales Tax) as well...Of the manufacturing costs reported, there's more surtcharges/taxes levied that the oil companies are having to pass on.

We're easily handy to 60-66% I read on the stickers at the pumps, I'm sure there's some hidden taxes there as well.
While I'm a bit pissed off we're being tax gouged, I'm no even more curious as to why the cost of gas back home in Atlanta is almost as much if tax rates are only 20-30%.

What's worse, the government (not just Canada) taxes the hell out of the record profits the oil companies are making - taking a cut of our savings.

I'm not one for consipiracies, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself a left-wing liberal, but I find it a bit suspicious that governments who makes zillions of the oil industry don't appear to be trying their hardest to eliminate any market inefficiencies to promote the best form of competition. They've got too much to gain standing pat.

[jeskibuff]

Consumers are well aware of the increases in Crude and the inevitable hikes at the pump, but when the reverse happens, it's never front page news, the consumer has become complacent, and accepts the new, high price of gas (although grudgingly)...there's less downward pressure from the demand side.What else can they be but complacent? They have little power to change things except to change their own worlds and become less dependent on gasoline. Sir TtT changed his world by buying a vehicle that oil moguls probably hope doesn't increase in popularity. Those who own gas guzzling SUVs changed their worlds and now they're more dependent on fuel prices. That was/is their choice and they need to deal with it. We all know the world is growing and will require more and more of the dwindling oil supply. Even the spread of democracy is bad because backwards countries like Iraq and Afghanistan will begin to prosper and they'll need a bigger portion of the oil supply as a result. Americans will change their habits if gas prices remain high - they will adjust. There's a lot of whining and wailing going on now despite the fact that our prices are still far lower than what Europeans have been paying for decades. It's far from a crisis. In a couple of months you may consider $3/gallon to be a bargain because you've gotten used to paying $3.50!


The supply side is artificially controlled.No doubt about that. OPEC is probably the major force in setting oil prices and as long as the demand is there, they can set any price that the market is willing to pay. Only when we cut our dependence on oil is when we'll be able to fight back.


A man has an empty tank and $20 in his pocket, he decides he's gonna spend that $20 on gas. Now say while on his, George W. Bush announces some crazy gas tax...the man still spends $20 on gas. Economics dictates the man should be willing to buy less gas at higher prices, but in reality, gas consumption keeps increasing, despite fuel efficiencies.Were you drunk when you were writing this? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and seems to be missing words. e.g.: "Now say while on his watch..."? You start with an example of buying power and end with talking consumption/efficiency. It's not coherent enough for me to interpolate what you're trying to say.


Interesting that you accept a corporation trying to price gouge, but seem to have a bit of contempt when the gouging comes from a government. Personally, I dont' like being ripped-off by eitherNor do I, but as I said before at least you have a bit of control over the corporation by decreasing your dependency on their product. Either you go to the competition who has the product at a cheaper price or you change your world so that you don't need as much of that product as you used to. With government they really don't care about how much product sells. If less sells then they'll just jack up the taxes to compensate for the loss of revenue.

As a similar example, consider when Clinton axed the 55 MPH national speed limit. I was living in Florida at the time and speed limits were subsequently raised on the interstates. This meant that there would be fewer speeding tickets issued, so the FHP promptly restructured the fines so that those fewer tickets would result in the same (if not more) revenue. Greedy S.O.B.s!

My big issue comes with your statement "I don't mind paying taxes for the well being of a country". Here you seem to be saying that "I'm perfectly content with Canadian government confiscating 2 out of every $3 I spend because they're using that money for the betterment of the nation". In reality, governments are the most wasteful of organizations with the least accountability for revenues. I would trust a corporation much more than I would trust a government. At least the corporation has to be held accountable for things.


Don't like gas prices, buy stocks in oil companies...A nice idea if you have the money. But if you've just shot your wad by tanking up your Tahoe... :rolleyes: :D


Yes you're right, in my haste I didn't qualify my earlier statement with "directly proportional to the drop in taxes"...i'll accept some slight oversight on my part in my hasty statement.Good, then I'll accept that as a half-hearted apology for your "too condescending" statement. :D


As for Canuckistan...are you trying to be derogatory or funny, and to which audience?Hey, I like a lot of things about Canada and the Canadian people. Quebecers seem to be of a different sort but they've got that French attitude thing going on there which even alienates them from their fellow Canuckistaners. Consider "Canuckistan" just an affectionate nickname for our northern neighbors. I picked up the term from another message board and consider it amusing and use it in a jesting mode. If someone gets a chuckle out of it, fine! If someone gets their panties all in a twist over it then they've got bigger mental problems to deal with, don't they?


I find it a bit suspicious that governments who makes zillions of the oil industry don't appear to be trying their hardest to eliminate any market inefficiencies to promote the best form of competition.This is good. You're apparently questioning the good nature of money-grubbing governments. Now given the fact that our oil supply is definitely finite, I wouldn't mind high taxes that push people into being more conservative with their gas consumption. But if they're going to collect all that money then they need to account for it and spend it mainly on projects intended to reduce oil dependency. Improve traffic flow. Spend some money on traffic light timing. Instead, the money just gets squandered into pork barrel projects. Only when governments are held accountable for their expenditures will I advocate higher taxes, but not until then.

[Duds]

Well if you think I am arrogant for thinking hybrids suck and are ugly, then i think you are a moron for buying one and you look like a dork driving it....

QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]You don't have a choice but to suck it up and pay. Calling hybrids a hunk of junk does not make the price go down either, it just makes you a part of the problem and not the solution. If you want to keep your attitude, then by all means pop out that fat wallet and continue to throw dead presidents at the gas pump. Keep in mind, the people in New Delhi and Bejing don't care one bit about your *****ing about the price of gas. And some prince in Saudi Arabia isn't going to feel sorry for you and offer you a discount price. Your arrogance has a price, and now you are paying it.[/QUOTE]

[kexodusc]

Were you drunk when you were writing this? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and seems to be missing words. e.g.: "Now say while on his watch..."? You start with an example of buying power and end with talking consumption/efficiency. It's not coherent enough for me to interpolate what you're trying to say.
I ...must...have...been...dunno WHERE I was going with that...looks like I cut something out and didn't past it back in......I think my point might have been around the necessity-like property of gasoline...here, consumption isn't related to supply or demand...this is where I'd like to see some form of effective, independant-from-government regulation to keep an eye on pump prices...the auto companies are killing themselves with discount incentives to push product in an oligopoly because as the prices have increased (especially in a rough time in the economy) consumption of NEW cars has decreased...consumption of gas has not...there's little real competition...generally on the demand curve, a higher price means less demand or decreased supply...Effective supply hasn't changed - there's plenty o' barrells of oil waiting to be opened, and a 15, 20, or 30 year reserve supply into the future before exhaustion in other industries is treated as being indefinite...how much time do we need to come up with a viable alternative?
Guess it'll take a crisis to change attitudes...


My big issue comes with your statement "I don't mind paying taxes for the well being of a country". Here you seem to be saying that "I'm perfectly content with Canadian government confiscating 2 out of every $3 I spend because they're using that money for the betterment of the nation". In reality, governments are the most wasteful of organizations with the least accountability for revenues. I would trust a corporation much more than I would trust a government. At least the corporation has to be held accountable for things.
Whoah! Slow down there my man...I don't mind paying taxes...My Dad served in the US Air Force for 25 years, they could have used more tax revenue...I'm not opposed to FAIR taxes...And it makes little difference to me what share a corporation or government gets at the price of the pump if the price is reasonable...Considering the close proximity in gas prices between Canada and home, despite double the taxation, I'm calling BS on someone, somewhere in the chain who ISN'T George W. Bush and co.
After saying I'm okay with paying taxes, to conclude I'm content being taken for 66% is a rushed conclusion...you got me all wrong, guy.

I'm not convinced governments are all wasteful, any moreso than the majority of businesses. Most have been cut to the point of operations failure. The only difference is when the government screws up, it's front page news...when mid-cap companies screw up, it's lucky to make page D-47.
And the last 5 years have taught us a lot about the integrity of the private sector...CEO's getting millions through corruption, then serving 6 months in jail...sounds like a fair trade to me. Sure you get the odd Enron where they're nailed to the wall in the public eye, but for the most part Corporate Governance and accountability is certainly not better than government. It all starts with people...and there's a too many money-grubbing people looking for the easy buck these days...

Hey, I like a lot of things about Canada and the Canadian people. Quebecers seem to be of a different sort but they've got that French attitude thing going on there which even alienates them from their fellow Canuckistaners. Consider "Canuckistan" just an affectionate nickname for our northern neighbors. I picked up the term from another message board and consider it amusing and use it in a jesting mode. If someone gets a chuckle out of it, fine! If someone gets their panties all in a twist over it then they've got bigger mental problems to deal with, don't they?
I've only ever been to Montreal, Quebec...mostly english, kind of like a less flamboyant San Francisco. Dunno what the deal with Quebec and Canada is. Interestingly enough corporate and personal taxes in this province (which is just above average in Canada on the personal, and just below on the corporate) are actually less than Maine and Georgia (last 2 states I lived in)...Canadians might soon be referring to us as the U.S.S.S.A.
The only real real shocker I've experienced in Canada is on the price of cars where a 15% tax comes out of nowhere. The money I save on health insurance for two of us more than compensates though. Not much difference in total taxes paid for my situation, just collected differently. I'm paid in USD though, and that's been a kick in the nuts since I got here :mad:



This is good. You're apparently questioning the good nature of money-grubbing governments. Not so much their money grubbing as their reluctance to enforce free-market principles on this industry for the apparent conflicting interests I mentioned.

[BRANDONH]

I've never driven a diesel vehicle that wasn't a dog as far as performance is concerned. For power and performance, give me gas-powered ANY DAY!

A dog no way!

http://www.bankspower.com/Tech_dieselperf.cfm

Thats why todays diesels are turbocharged.
My car is only one second slower in the quarter mile that of the same car with the base gasoline model with torque close to that of a V6.
Test drive one youll see.



But diesels emit much more particulate matter. They are worse polluters than gas and harder to clean up, from what I understand.

That's mostly the fault of the diesel fuel sold here in the USA which USA diesel is the dirtiest in the world.
Todays diesel will eventually be replaced with Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel (ULSD) which will help a great deal.

http://www.dieselforum.org/factsheet/ulsd.html

Other advantages:
No tune-ups i.e. no spark plugs.
Durability, longer lasting engines with an easy 300000+ miles before rebuild.
5000 miles between oil changes.
Basic inspection i.e. no emissions test so inspection is cheeper.
Diesel engines can run on Bio-Diesel (non petroleum Vegetable oil base) which could be made at home if absolutely needed and is completely non polluting.
(try making your own gasoline)

http://www.biodiesel.org/.

Its the old thinking that diesels are sooty, slow and noisy because of the earlier GM cars back in the 80s that were gasoline engines converted to diesel.

http://www.journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_future.html

If and when the Hybrid diesel goes into production they expect to see 100 mpg.
With extremely low emissions running un either bio or ulsd.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Exactly. The simple laws of supply and demand apply.

Yes, you lower demand, which increases inventory and drives the price down.



A bit of an exaggeration, eh, Sir TtT?

Well, maybe a bit. But was trying to make a point, not do a complete and accurate analysis.


By my calculations, if your Honda cost about $20K (let's say you got a deal at $19K, including taxes and fees)

Actually it was $17,500 including taxes and fees.


and you've been paying an average of $2.30/gallon (not the recent $3)


I live in the bay area man, we haven't paid $2.30/gallon for about a year now. It has averaged around $2.50/gallon for a while now.



...have you put that many miles on it already?

Not even close. But once again, I was trying to make a point. The value that I place on it goes farther than just money. I commute with my best friend in the morning when not travelling. That means I can ride in the HOV lane every morning. Instead of it taking 45 minutes to get to work, it takes 15 minutes. So when I say it has paid for itself, it has in both time and money.


I'm sure many more people would want them if they weren't so ugly. In my opinion, the tear-drop shaped Honda is particularly unsightly. Still, with the current gas prices the hybrids are selling like hotcakes despite the looks! But beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I bet you just love yours, don't you Sir TtT? :D

I personally don't think the Insight is ugly, but I guess that's a matter of opinion. . It does have a spacey, unusual look, but I get great comments all the time. Now the Prius is pretty ugly to me, but not to the thousands of folks that own them.(they seem to be everywhere in the bay area)



How much gas is wasted sitting at intersections like that, not to mention the wear-and-tear your vehicle gets from the stop-and-go driving? Let's get our roads up to their full potential for moving traffic! Let's get rid of the bottlenecks caused by lower-than-they-should-be speed limits. Stop-and-go driving at 40MPH uses much more gas than does traffic moving over 65MPH, plus it prematurely wears out both your car and the road surface and increases the likelihood of collisions.

][/QUOTE]

I don't worry about sitting at stop lights. Aside from wasting my time, I just put the car into neutral, and the engine goes off. No wasted gas here.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well if you think I am arrogant for thinking hybrids suck and are ugly, then i think you are a moron for buying one and you look like a dork driving it....

QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]You don't have a choice but to suck it up and pay. Calling hybrids a hunk of junk does not make the price go down either, it just makes you a part of the problem and not the solution. If you want to keep your attitude, then by all means pop out that fat wallet and continue to throw dead presidents at the gas pump. Keep in mind, the people in New Delhi and Bejing don't care one bit about your *****ing about the price of gas. And some prince in Saudi Arabia isn't going to feel sorry for you and offer you a discount price. Your arrogance has a price, and now you are paying it.

Since you have never seen me driving my car, I 'll just chalk up this statement to the lack of any grey matter between the ears. Thanks to my hybrid I have more money in my pocket that is not going to the middle east. Can you say the same, or does the lack of grey matter prevent you from making a intelligent answer.

[Duds]

Considering i dont have a car payment, it's safe to say i have more money in my pocket than if I went out and bought an ugly hybrid that would take may years and miles before I saw any kind of savings on gas purchases.


Since you have never seen me driving my car, I 'll just chalk up this statement to the lack of any grey matter between the ears. Thanks to my hybrid I have more money in my pocket that is not going to the middle east. Can you say the same, or does the lack of grey matter prevent you from making a intelligent answer.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Considering i dont have a car payment, it's safe to say i have more money in my pocket than if I went out and bought an ugly hybrid that would take may years and miles before I saw any kind of savings on gas purchases.

I guess you are right, most children have bycycles so you wouldn't have a car payment. Funny, I don't have a car payment either, my car is paid for. Is your bycycle?

[jeskibuff]

Well if you think I am arrogant for thinking hybrids suck and are ugly, then i think you are a moron for buying one and you look like a dork driving it...Hey...I'm the one who called the Insight ugly. You called it a hunk of junk. Incidentally, Honda has a sterling reputation for building some of the most reliable cars on the planet. Toyota, too! Calling them "hunks of junks" clearly shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. As far as Sir TtT being a moron for buying one, the facts show that he made a smart decision not only for himself but for his fellow humans on this planet. As far as "looking like a dork driving it", what total simplemindedness to judge someone based on the vehicle they drive! That's purely a shallow and superficial attitude. And who's more of a man? Someone who's so insecure that they have to drive a car that projects an "acceptable" image in order to get attention or someone who's secure and self-confident enough to drive a car that other people may consider "uncool"? My hat's off to Sir TtT for his choice of vehicle!



Were you drunk when you were writing this?I ...must...have...been...dunno WHERE I was going with thatIt's okay. If you need some kind of drug or alcohol intervention, just say so! We're here for you! :D


the auto companies are killing themselves with discount incentives to push product in an oligopoly because as the prices have increased (especially in a rough time in the economy) consumption of NEW cars has decreasedFirst off, I don't see near as many discount incentives to push cars as there was years ago. The economy has improved quite a bit, but sales aren't always tied directly to the economy. Many people bought new cars years ago when incentives were REALLY good but those cars are more reliable than they were in years past, so why should they buy another one so soon? I'm still driving a 1997 BMW M3 and while it'd be nice to have a newer car, mine has been ridiculously reliable, is still a blast to drive and I'm not attracted to much in today's marketplace that I would consider an improvement. I no longer have car payments...there's not much incentive for me to buy new. This is the way car ownership should be...no planned obsolescence. It's good for the buyer, but not so good for the manufacturers!


...consumption of gas has notI still don't quite get the connection you're trying to make. You're saying that because car sales have decreased that consumption should decrease too? If so, that's flawed logic because driving an old car or a new car is still driving a car that consumes gas. And with the SUV being the hot mover over the last few years, it shouldn't be a mystery that consumption would be greater.


a higher price means less demand or decreased supplySorry, but a higher price tends to follow greater demand for a product that's in limited supply.


Guess it'll take a crisis to change attitudesYou got that right!


I'm not opposed to FAIR taxesNeither am I, nor most Americans that I know. But what makes a tax fair? Isn't it all dependent on how that tax money is spent? Where does that 2/3 go to in New Brunswick? If it's going into tangible improvements in infrastructure and other worthy projects, it's fair, isn't it? You're essentially helping to purchase a commodity that's good for you and your fellow citizens. But if it's being wasted and squandered, it no longer can be considered "fair".


Considering the close proximity in gas prices between Canada and home, despite double the taxation, I'm calling BS on someoneBut didn't you say earlier that there was a huge disparity in prices across Canada because of taxes? I believe there's a lot we don't know, but the more we look the more we can understand the market forces at work. Whether there's a lot of BS going on or pricing that can be justified cannot be determined. Before we assess blame on someone we ought to make sure we've got our facts straight.


I'm not convinced governments are all wasteful, any moreso than the majority of businesses. Most have been cut to the point of operations failure.There are many reasons governments suffer under budget cuts, but mainly occur when the expected revenue stream that supports a bloated entity suddenly dries up. You bet that many states have suffered loss of sales tax revenue because of the ability for someone to easily acquire goods over the internet instead of buying them locally. I'm convinced that most governments are far more wasteful than equivalently-sized private corporations. Accountability makes the difference, and there's little to be found in government. In the interest of brevity and in keeping this thread on track, I'll refrain from commenting on the other comparisons between the public and private sectors.


I'm paid in USD though, and that's been a kick in the nuts since I got hereUnless you're paid in US$ but taxed in Can$ what's unfair about that? If your peers make your salary only in Can$, I can see how your company could be seen as taking unfair advantage of you, but if you're being paid the equivalent in US$, how is that unfair?


A dog no way!
.
Thats why todays diesels are turbocharged.
My car is only one second slower in the quarter mile that of the same car with the base gasoline model with torque close to that of a V6.Apples and oranges. You're comparing a normally aspirated gas engine with a turbocharged diesel. Turbocharge the gas engine and measure the 0-60 time difference then! Even with turbocharging the diesel is still slower than the gas engine. Dieselforum.org's assertion that performance is better than gas must only pertain to fuel consumption, not road manners.


Its the old thinking that diesels are sooty, slow and noisy because of the earlier GM cars back in the 80s that were gasoline engines converted to diesel.Yeah, GM sure took a short cut that helped to ruin their reputation. Not so much that they were "sooty, slow and noisy" but for the fact that those engines failed regularly under the stress of higher compression ratios needed to run diesel. Gawd, what a bunch of fools!


I live in the bay area man, we haven't paid $2.30/gallon for about a year now. It has averaged around $2.50/gallon for a while now.As I said, I was just juggling some guess-timates around. There are major unknowns concerning how long you have owned your Honda, etc.


I can ride in the HOV lane every morning. Instead of it taking 45 minutes to get to work, it takes 15 minutes. So when I say it has paid for itself, it has in both time and money.But couldn't you do that in a regular vehicle as well? Or does "HOV" now mean "Hybrid Only Vehicles" in Kaliforneea now? :D


I don't worry about sitting at stop lights. Aside from wasting my time, I just put the car into neutral, and the engine goes off. No wasted gas here.Sorry, but hybrid or not, it wastes gas. Yes, the engine isn't running but when you hit the "gas" again, your batteries are is depleted while accelerating the car back to cruising speed. Once the gas engine kicks in again some of the fuel you're burning is used to bring the batteries up to full charge. If you were able to sail through that light you wouldn't waste the momentum (even if the braking also helps to recharge the batteries). But though your Honda makes it much more efficient to stop at a traffic light, the point still is that most other cars are not as thrifty and the stop-and-go is nasty on gas consumption.


I don't have a car payment either, my car is paid for. Is your bycycle?Oooh. That had to have left a mark! :D

[Duds]

Have you been an ass your whole life? I dont know what prompted your personal attack on me, i thought i had a right to my opinion. Guess you can dish it out but you cant take it.

and no, its not a bicycle...it's a big V-8 gas hog....BWAHAHAHAH!!!!! maybe if i see you friving your little ugly ass hybrid i'll give you a honk...


I guess you are right, most children have bycycles so you wouldn't have a car payment. Funny, I don't have a car payment either, my car is paid for. Is your bycycle?

[Duds]

most children know how to spell bicycle....


I guess you are right, most children have bycycles so you wouldn't have a car payment. Funny, I don't have a car payment either, my car is paid for. Is your bycycle?

[Duds]

Would you guys relax a little? I made a simple statement, and Terrence makes a personal attack on me, so i respond. I'm having fun here in case you guys cant see my sarcasm. I could care less what you drive, and you shouldnt care what people think about the vehicle you drive. I could care less what people think of the vehicle I drive...its a 96 Yukon wiht rust on it for cryin out loud. Does it bother me people may talk about the rust? HELL NO!!! Does it bother me that people may talk about the clothes i wear? HELL NO!!!

Christ, cant we all get along?!!

By the way, I think the Honda hybrid is a nice looking car, it actually looks normal. Some of the other ones just look plain stupid, I dont care how good they are on gas. But again, thats my opinion and no one should care what I think!!!

[QUOTE=jeskibuff]Hey...I'm the one who called the Insight ugly. You called it a hunk of junk. Incidentally, Honda has a sterling reputation for building some of the most reliable cars on the planet. Toyota, too! Calling them "hunks of junks" clearly shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. As far as Sir TtT being a moron for buying one, the facts show that he made a smart decision not only for himself but for his fellow humans on this planet. As far as "looking like a dork driving it", what total simplemindedness to judge someone based on the vehicle they drive! That's purely a shallow and superficial attitude. And who's more of a man? Someone who's so insecure that they have to drive a car that projects an "acceptable" image in order to get attention or someone who's secure and self-confident enough to drive a car that other people may consider "uncool"? My hat's off to Sir TtT for his choice of vehicle!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hey...I'm the one who called the Insight ugly. You called it a hunk of junk. Incidentally, Honda has a sterling reputation for building some of the most reliable cars on the planet. Toyota, too! Calling them "hunks of junks" clearly shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. As far as Sir TtT being a moron for buying one, the facts show that he made a smart decision not only for himself but for his fellow humans on this planet. As far as "looking like a dork driving it", what total simplemindedness to judge someone based on the vehicle they drive! That's purely a shallow and superficial attitude. And who's more of a man? Someone who's so insecure that they have to drive a car that projects an "acceptable" image in order to get attention or someone who's secure and self-confident enough to drive a car that other people may consider "uncool"? My hat's off to Sir TtT for his choice of vehicle!

Thanks for the support bro!



As I said, I was just juggling some guess-timates around. There are major unknowns concerning how long you have owned your Honda, etc.

Eh, I was just funnin ya. You did all of these fancy calculations and it got me all flustered and stuff LOL


But couldn't you do that in a regular vehicle as well? Or does "HOV" now mean "Hybrid Only Vehicles" in Kaliforneea now? :D

Hey, I think we should exchange the C for a K, it actually looks kinda cool. Actually no, I couldn't do it in my other car. You have to have 3 or more in your car to use the high occupancy vehicle lanes here(HOV or diamond lanes as they call them here in Kali). However if you have a two seater then you can use the lane if you have a passenger. We just had a law here approved so that I can ride in that lane even If I didn't have a passenger with me.


Sorry, but hybrid or not, it wastes gas. Yes, the engine isn't running but when you hit the "gas" again, your batteries are is depleted while accelerating the car back to cruising speed. Once the gas engine kicks in again some of the fuel you're burning is used to bring the batteries up to full charge.

Jeskibuff, it works just a little different than that. The battery in the Insight is used to assist in acceleration, and to start the car from neutral. It doesn't run out(I have never seen it happen with me), and the battery is recharged when the car coasts, when braking, or in deceleration. The battery actually helps the car use less fuel when accelerating, and charging doesn't use any extra gas whasoever. While acceleration does use some battery juice, it is very small in most cases, and easily made up without burning much fuel. I didn't know all of this when I bought the car, I just thought is was a cool looking car, walked on the lot, and told the salesman I wanted it.



If you were able to sail through that light you wouldn't waste the momentum (even if the braking also helps to recharge the batteries). But though your Honda makes it much more efficient to stop at a traffic light, the point still is that most other cars are not as thrifty and the stop-and-go is nasty on gas consumption.

You are right, most cars are not this thrifty. It still would be better for all if traffic lights were better timed. I may save gas, but I don't save time when they are not.




Oooh. That had to have left a mark! :D

I really hate going to this level.

[kexodusc]

I still don't quite get the connection you're trying to make. You're saying that because car sales have decreased that consumption should decrease too? If so, that's flawed logic because driving an old car or a new car is still driving a car that consumes gas. And with the SUV being the hot mover over the last few years, it shouldn't be a
mystery that consumption would be greater.

No you're way off - I'm not saying car sales and consumption are related...I'm talking about pricing. Basic laws of supply and demand (in particular the demand curve) insist that at higher prices, fewer will be able to buy. People have limited money. You increase an expense somewhere, it eats into other areas...This can be observed in other industries...I only used cars as an example of this. Prices have gone up, people are making do with their vehicles a bit longer, the average turnover time is down a bit. With gas, we have not seen a decrease in consumption as a result of the increase in prices at a macro level, despite a constant supply of gasoline and effectively indefinite reserves. A percentage of the population like Sir T have adjusted, but not enough to make a difference, yet. In fact just the opposite...people apparently don't care about the price of gas and now we're seeing SUV's sales growing again.


Sorry, but a higher price tends to follow greater demand for a product that's in limited supply.
No need to apologize, you are only half right here...Price is set where demand and supply meet, two functions, not one exclusively. Both of these don't have to change, either can affect the price by itself as well.


Neither am I, nor most Americans that I know. But what makes a tax fair? Isn't it all dependent on how that tax money is spent? Where does that 2/3 go to in New Brunswick? If it's going into tangible improvements in infrastructure and other worthy projects, it's fair, isn't it? You're essentially helping to purchase a commodity that's good for you and your fellow citizens. But if it's being wasted and squandered, it no longer can be considered "fair".Fair is relative when your talking government programs. Health-care isn't so important to me at my age with my health...give me tax cuts or better highways. If I was 70 with cancer my opinion might change on how money should be spent. We could discuss whether a government should be even-handed to all people or just cater to the needs of a majority to determine what fair is, but I haven't decided which side of that fence I'm on yet. Whatever's most beneficial to me at the time I guess.


But didn't you say earlier that there was a huge disparity in prices across Canada because of taxes?
Nope...might have been someone else. I don't know what prices are everywhere else...but tax levels outside of oil-bearing Alberta aren't radically different from region to region...they are different though, but the price of gas tends to be fairly similar.


I believe there's a lot we don't know, but the more we look the more we can understand the market forces at work. Whether there's a lot of BS going on or pricing that can be justified cannot be determined.
I think you've just said it all - if we can't determine if the pricing can be justified then we've got a huge problem...Earlier you said everybody will take advantage of a potential profit making situation...your two statements combined create dangerous scenario, and what I consider to be the "BS" in the system.


I'm convinced that most governments are far more wasteful than equivalently-sized private corporations. Accountability makes the difference, and there's little to be found in government. In the interest of brevity and in keeping this thread on track, I'll refrain from commenting on the other comparisons between the public and private sectors.
I've never worked for the public sector but my job requires me to analyse the efficiencies of the private sector. There's a huge survivor bias in determining accountability between private sectors and public sector entities...the government is as close to a going-concern as you can get...businesses are not. A lot of bad companies don't show up in stats...historical government inefficiencies do. You could be right and public accountability is sometimes worse. To me that doesn't excuse the private sector of the need for accountability and the lack of it. Being better than government isn't the right test to pass.


Unless you're paid in US$ but taxed in Can$ what's unfair about that? If your peers make your salary only in Can$, I can see how your company could be seen as taking unfair advantage of you, but if you're being paid the equivalent in US$, how is that unfair?
Taxed in Canadian, which is fair to me, I work in Canada and it's actually more beneficial to me from a tax perspective...I had a choice to be paid a fixed salary in either currency (company policy, makes accounting easier for somebody somehow) At that date they were equivalent...I chose $US because I was more comfortable with the almighty $US dollar, basically betting on the US economy relative the Canadian economy. My problem is since I came to Canada the Candian dollar has kicked the crap out of the US dollar. That wasn't predicted in the US (things were suppose to get better) when I came. Bad timing, I guess. Since I live in an economy where everything is sold in $C, I have to convert from $US. Everytime the $US drops relative the $C, I take home less money while my living costs stay the same. About 12% of my salary since I came. My bonuses are paid in Canadian so it's not all bad. Good news is I can change in July.
We're a US company lots of Americans relocated here. Some of my peers are in the same boat some aren't. Things heat up in the summer when everyone decides which currency to choose. Knowing my luck I'll go 0 for 2.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Have you been an ass your whole life? I dont know what prompted your personal attack on me, i thought i had a right to my opinion. Guess you can dish it out but you cant take it.

First I wasn't attacking you personally. I was attacking a very arrogant american like thought process that says we can use however much oil we like, and we want it cheap too. Sorry, those days are over man. The Chinese and Indians now want a piece of the pie, a increasingly larger piece I might add.


and no, its not a bicycle...it's a big V-8 gas hog....BWAHAHAHAH!!!!! maybe if i see you friving your little ugly ass hybrid i'll give you a honk...

Great, a typical arrogant american thought process with a typical american gas guzzling car. Just what the world needs. SUV and V-8's are the very thing that is polluting our air, and making Prince(you put a name here) a very rich Saudi. Don't bother honking bro, I wouldn't take notice anyway. I completely understand that you have your opinion about what is ugly and what is not, but this is not about what is ugly, but what is efficient, cheap to operate, and gets me to point B.

If I made decisions based soley on what is ugly or not, I probably wouldn't be having this dialog with you right now. Now bwahaha to that!

[kexodusc]

most children know how to spell bicycle....
Yes, but...



and no, its not a bicycle...it's a big V-8 gas hog....BWAHAHAHAH!!!!! maybe if i see you friving your little ugly ass hybrid i'll give you a honk...

Most kids also know how to spell "driving"... :D

Sorry Duds, but it's always dangerous to make fun of spelling/typing mistakes. :D

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

most children know how to spell bicycle....

Now you have taken to majoring in minors. Lofty cogitative skills you got there.

[Duds]

he spelled bicycle wrong not once, but twice.

I simply hit the "f" key which is right next to "d". the "i" and the "y" keys are not right next to each other....

[Duds]

OK, so your thought process is that since i purchased an SUV for the fact that it has 4 wheel drive and has plenty of room for my Saint Bernard, I am an arrogant American?? wow, that's amazing...

Sure, Subarus have 4 wheel drive, could my dog fit in the back? no way...

If the GMC trail blazer with the inline 6 was available when i bought my yukon, i most likely would have purchased one of those....and yes, the older blazers were available, but were much smaller, and being 6'3" i wouldnt not have been comfortable driving it....




First I wasn't attacking you personally. I was attacking a very arrogant american like thought process that says we can use however much oil we like, and we want it cheap too. Sorry, those days are over man. The Chinese and Indians now want a piece of the pie, a increasingly larger piece I might add.



Great, a typical arrogant american thought process with a typical american gas guzzling car. Just what the world needs. SUV and V-8's are the very thing that is polluting our air, and making Prince(you put a name here) a very rich Saudi. Don't bother honking bro, I wouldn't take notice anyway. I completely understand that you have your opinion about what is ugly and what is not, but this is not about what is ugly, but what is efficient, cheap to operate, and gets me to point B.

If I made decisions based soley on what is ugly or not, I probably wouldn't be having this dialog with you right now. Now bwahaha to that!

[kexodusc]

he spelled bicycle wrong not once, but twice.

I simply hit the "f" key which is right next to "d". the "i" and the "y" keys are not right next to each other....

Oh, well then, since you put it like that..

[Duds]

i'm really just having fun with you guys. Its funny how a post about gas prices can turn into all americans being arrogant and hybrid cars being ugly, etc.


Oh, well then, since you put it like that..

[jeskibuff]

I dont know what prompted your personal attack on me, i thought i had a right to my opinion. Guess you can dish it out but you cant take it.Let's see here, your first post in this thread is a direct insult to Sir TtT's vehicle sense:

Many poeple dont have the funds to go out and purchase a hunk of junk hybrid vehicle
When Sir TtT responds in kind to your insult (appropriately, I might add, also based on your comment of "that's just giving in to these prices") you respond with:
i think you are a moron for buying one and you look like a dork driving it
Now that's a personal attack if I ever saw one!
Then you further irritate the matter by saying
it's safe to say i have more money in my pocket than if I went out and bought an ugly hybridThen as soon as there's a retaliatory comment you cry "Would you guys relax a little? I made a simple statement, and Terrence makes a personal attack on me"
Based on that little exchange, I would say that someone can dish it out but can't take it, but in this case that someone isn't Sir TtT!

Hey, you're not a real-life version of the character in Stephen King's "Dreamcatcher", are you "Duds"? :D


I'm having fun here in case you guys cant see my sarcasm.Maybe if your comments weren't so pointed it would have been different, but they came across as pretty insulting from my perspective.


if you have a two seater then you can use the lane if you have a passenger. We just had a law here approved so that I can ride in that lane even If I didn't have a passenger with me.That makes sense and sounds as if a good law was passed. I'm assuming that it means you can drive in the HOV alone if you're in a hybrid. Or does it apply to any car or motorcycle that gets over say, 50 MPG? You do realize this means you no longer have any (believable) excuse to keep your inflatable woman around, don't you?


The battery in the Insight is used to assist in acceleration, and to start the car from neutral. It doesn't run out(I have never seen it happen with me),Oh, but it would eventually run out, as energy doesn't come out of thin air.


the battery is recharged when the car coasts, when braking, or in deceleration.Yes, but some of that energy which brought the car up to cruising speed came from gasoline.


The battery actually helps the car use less fuel when accelerating, and charging doesn't use any extra gas whasoever.I believe the Prius relies totally on electric power when accelerating from stop. Charging technically uses gas...it's just a process of recovering the energy that was used to get the car up to speed. If you don't believe it, then just let the fuel tank go empty. Eventually the batteries will go dead because the gas is needed to maintain the charge.


Dude, you've totally got to reply to one of us at a timeWhatsamatter, you can't keep up?? :D


A percentage of the population like Sir T have adjusted, but not enough to make a difference, yet. In fact just the opposite...people apparently don't care about the price of gas and now we're seeing SUV's sales growing again.I think many people have made adjustments and many are probably waiting to see what happens. People love the behemoths so it may take $4/gal to get them to change their minds, maybe more. Even if some wanted to get out of them, could they do so if the demand on the used market meant they couldn't get enough out of the sale to pay off their loans or perhaps would take a severe beating on a trade-in? From what I've seen, the sales incentives are on the SUVs which means the car companies are having greater difficulty moving them now.




a higher price means less demand or decreased supplySorry, but a higher price tends to follow greater demand for a product that's in limited supplyNo need to apologize, you are only half right here...Price is set where demand and supply meet, two functions, not one exclusively.Uh, it wasn't quite "an apology" and the words "tends to follow" takes into account those two components of the equation. One thing for certain though is that "a higher price" doesn't "mean less demand" in the supply-and-demand equation. This is just a matter of semantics as I believe you're saying that as a result of higher prices people will seek alternative options, eventually lessening demand. But then that weaker demand will eventually result in lowering of prices, won't it?


Fair is relative when your talking government programs. Health-care isn't so important to me at my age with my health...give me tax cuts or better highways. If I was 70 with cancer my opinion might change on how money should be spent.Fairness is more absolute when you can put yourself in the shoes of that 70-year-old with cancer. Theoretically, you shouldn't have to "be there" to determine if that's fair or not.



But didn't you say earlier that there was a huge disparity in prices across Canada because of taxes?
Nope...might have been someone else. I don't know what prices are everywhere else...but tax levels outside of oil-bearing Alberta aren't radically different from region to region...they are different though, but the price of gas tends to be fairly similar.
Then who said this in post #30?

I did a bit more research on the Canadian tax levels...they vary by province...according to Esso (division of Exxon, www.esso.ca) 40-50% of the price at the pumps includes a direct gas tax...there's double and even triple taxing going on...On the east cost, some provinces have a gas surcharge of 8% (Harmonized Sales Tax) as well...Of the manufacturing costs reported, there's more surtcharges/taxes levied that the oil companies are having to pass on.


Good news is I can change in July.
We're a US company lots of Americans relocated here. Some of my peers are in the same boat some aren't. Things heat up in the summer when everyone decides which currency to choose. Knowing my luck I'll go 0 for 2.Hey, I'll sell you my Magic 8 Ball for only $88 and that'll help you make the right choice! Consider it a meager investment for the windfall you'll make!! :D


First I wasn't attacking you personally. I was attacking a very arrogant american like thought processOh, those are some GREAT weasel words Sir TtT. You're not a lawyer by profession, are you? :D


Sure, Subarus have 4 wheel drive, could my dog fit in the back?If he was a real dog, you could just tie him to the bumper like the Griswolds did in one of those National Lampoon "Vacation" movies! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mrscoffee/howling.gif

[Duds]

I never said his hybrid was a hunk of junk. so no reason to call me arrogant, i'm the least arrogant person you will ever meet. whatever, like i said, i'm having fun...if you dont like me, dont respond to my posts

about the dog, that would be good exercise for him, but his hips arent so great... :(

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

OK, so your thought process is that since i purchased an SUV for the fact that it has 4 wheel drive and has plenty of room for my Saint Bernard, I am an arrogant American?? wow, that's amazing...


Okay, Let me get this straight, you need a SUV for your dog and yourself? You are kidding right? Do you go off road? If not, then why do you need a 4 wheel drive? They do make 4 wheel drive cars that are much more fuel efficient than a SUV you know.


Sure, Subarus have 4 wheel drive, could my dog fit in the back? no way...

Right! I have a black lab that comfortably sits in the passenger seat of my ugly hybrid. He can also comfortably sit on the floor even when I have had passengers(my friends love my dog).




If the GMC trail blazer with the inline 6 was available when i bought my yukon, i most likely would have purchased one of those....and yes, the older blazers were available, but were much smaller, and being 6'3" i wouldnt not have been comfortable driving it....

My best friend who commutes with me to work is 6'4". He finds my ugly hybrid VERY comfortable.(he would not ride in it if otherwise) And you need a SUV. I am not saying that you shouldn't buy a SUV, what I am saying is that your choice is part of why gas prices are so high, and why you shouldn't ***** on bit about it.

Lastly, I am more about the issue which is much larger than how words are spelled. One of the most known online debate tricks is when you have nothing intelligent to offer to the discussion, then you insult the other persons spelling, or vocabulary. That is called spin, and this is a no spin zone.

[Woochifer]

Always an interesting flow of things whenever the gas prices spike. In inflation-adjusted terms, we're not even up to the peak prices that occurred in the early-80s (I believe that the national average would have to climb over $3 a gallon before we surpass the true all-time high). During that "shortage" and the one that occurred with the Arab embargo in the mid-70s, prices went back down due to two simple factors -- 1) Americans adjusted their behavior to minimize their budgetary burden (i.e. they switched to more fuel efficient cars, they took better care of the car that they already had, they drove less, they took public transportation, they carpooled, etc.) and 2) oil producers increased production. In each case, the price of gas plummeted once those two factors manifested themselves.

Gas prices on the rise is no shock, I'm just surprised that it did not happen sooner. From what I understand, oil producers have been increasing their rate of production to keep pace with demand. However, right now with the burgeoning economies in China and India, the demand is rising a lot faster than it had previously. With resources like oil, it does not take a huge increase in demand or decrease in production to cause an inordinately large increase in prices. The true "value" of a commodity is typically somewhere between the extremes. But, I think that the rise in global demand and how our overall vehicle fleet has moved away from fuel efficiency over the past 20 years means that high gas prices will likely be more the norm than the exception for the near future.

And on hybrids, we have only begun to see what they are capable of. Relegating them to the tree hugging crowd is pretty ignorant because hybrid technology not only increases fuel economy but it can also bring a dramatic increase in performance as well. I read a couple of years ago that Honda is developing a hybrid sports car (presumably the successor to the once-cutting-edge but now aging Acura NSX) that will not only deliver world beating performance (they're targeting 0 to 60 in less than four seconds), but get 30 MPG as well. Even now, the hybrid Accord is quicker and more responsive than the Accord V-6, yet has better fuel economy than the four-cylinder version. The first batch of hybrids might have been high efficiency curiosities, but now we're starting to see more hybrids that look and behave like normal cars. The only difference is the higher fuel economy and the quicker acceleration (and for now, the higher sticker price).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That makes sense and sounds as if a good law was passed. I'm assuming that it means you can drive in the HOV alone if you're in a hybrid. Or does it apply to any car or motorcycle that gets over say, 50 MPG? You do realize this means you no longer have any (believable) excuse to keep your inflatable woman around, don't you?

It applies to cars that get 45mpg and over. Shhhhhhh man, the doll was supposed to be a secret! LOL, she still has nightime duties though (doh!!)


Oh, but it would eventually run out, as energy doesn't come out of thin air.

Eventually the battery will have to be changed out, but as long as you put on the brake or decelerate it will always charge back up after accelerating. I have never seen my display go below half on battery usage since I have owned the car(2 years)


Yes, but some of that energy which brought the car up to cruising speed came from gasoline.

That is correct, but not a much as the normal non hybrid car. That is why it gets such good mileage. Plus you need that battery as the engine is only a 1.3liter 3 cylinder engine. Not corvette fast, but it does have a nice zip because of its low weight and areodynamic shape.


I believe the Prius relies totally on electric power when accelerating from stop. Charging technically uses gas...it's just a process of recovering the energy that was used to get the car up to speed. If you don't believe it, then just let the fuel tank go empty. Eventually the batteries will go dead because the gas is needed to maintain the charge.

There is no way I am testing this hypothesis, I don't like pushing cars (LOL). But you are right, it does need gasoline to keep the charge. You can't brake or decelerate without actually moving.


Oh, those are some GREAT weasel words Sir TtT. You're not a lawyer by profession, are you? :D


A lawyer!!! Bite your tongue mister.. Since I don't know this dude, attacking him personally would be silly. However his thought process is VERY familar, and that is what I had a problem with.

[BRANDONH]

Apples and oranges. You're comparing a normally aspirated gas engine with a turbocharged diesel. Turbocharge the gas engine and measure the 0-60 time difference then! Even with turbocharging the diesel is still slower than the gas engine. Dieselforum.org's assertion that performance is better than gas must only pertain to fuel consumption, not road manners.

Yea, a turbo gas compared to turbo diesel is faster but will it get 50 mpg?
How about comparing horse power to horse power.
My diesel 90 hp the same car Gas 115 hp my car 1 second slower in the quarter.
Like I said todays diesels are no dogs.

[Geoffcin]

Gas priced will plummet when the global economy takes a nose dive. The American economy is poised to make such a dive, probably starting by next September after the feds are forced to close off the cheap $$$ supply to forestall raging inflation brought on by the dollars precipitous fall in value related to imports, and the full impact of higher energy costs impacting the economy.

[cam]

Since you have never seen me driving my car, I 'll just chalk up this statement to the lack of any grey matter between the ears. Thanks to my hybrid I have more money in my pocket that is not going to the middle east. Can you say the same, or does the lack of grey matter prevent you from making a intelligent answer.
Sir T, I totally respect your respect for our planet, but you say, thanks to your hybrid, you have more money in your pocket. Well that maybe true in one respect (not buying as much fuel) but there is no doubt you paid more money for you initial purchase. And if you keep that car for 7-8 years, the battery pack will need to be replaced for about 6-8 thousand dollars. There goes all the money you saved. And if you try to sell it at around the 7 year mark before the battery needs replacement, the resale price will be substanially lower, unless you unload it to some unsuspecting fool who thinks the battery last forever and or doesn't have a clue what it cost to replace.

[cam]

That's too bad, Cam...I did a bit more research on the Canadian tax levels...they vary by province...according to Esso (division of Exxon, www.esso.ca) 40-50% of the price at the pumps includes a direct gas tax...there's double and even triple taxing going on...On the east cost, some provinces have a gas surcharge of 8% (Harmonized Sales Tax) as well...Of the manufacturing costs reported, there's more surtcharges/taxes levied that the oil companies are having to pass on.

We're easily handy to 60-66% I read on the stickers at the pumps, I'm sure there's some hidden taxes there as well.
While I'm a bit pissed off we're being tax gouged, I'm no even more curious as to why the cost of gas back home in Atlanta is almost as much if tax rates are only 20-30%.

What's worse, the government (not just Canada) taxes the hell out of the record profits the oil companies are making - taking a cut of our savings.

I'm not one for consipiracies, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself a left-wing liberal, but I find it a bit suspicious that governments who makes zillions of the oil industry don't appear to be trying their hardest to eliminate any market inefficiencies to promote the best form of competition. They've got too much to gain standing pat.
105.9 a liter i guess was a deal because today it is now 107.9. Where I live I am 35 minutes out of Vancouver. We have an area which is called the GVRD (greater vancouver regional district) which streches from Vancouver to the Aldergrove/Abottsford border. Once you hit Abottsford, the taxes drop 8 cents a liter. The GVRD collects that extra 8 cents per liter to help fund Translink which is the name of our transit system. The money doesn't seem to be very effective because most people like myself can't use it because it would take me one bus then the skytrain and then another bus to get to work, about one hour, or I can take my four cylinder car 14 kilometers, about 20 minutes.

[kexodusc]

Then who said this in post #30?


Yeah, I wrote post #30...so? No where in there is "huge disparity" implied or mentioned...yes there's double and triple taxation going on in all provinces, yes there's an 8% harmonized sales tax for the east cost provinces...there are other surcharges in other jursisdictions. The lone exception is Alberta where the oil industry is (the 40% figure). The remainder are all around 50% (plus surcharges of varying amounts around 8%). The differences are hardly a huge disparity, but they're there as one would expect.

[Duds]

No Sir Terry, not the only reasons. I live in upstate NY, we get snow up here, 4WD is very helpful in snow....

Your black lab weighs how much? My Saint BErnard weighs 170 pounds and comes up to my hips. Like I said, i'm 6'3" so that should give you an idea of his height. HAving a dog sit on the floor in the back seat of a car is very dangerous as well...

To blame the cost of gas on SUV's is absurd. How long has the V-8 been around? A long time, they've been in pick up trucks for many many years now. Remember the old muscle car days? I seem to hear a lot about the big V-8's they had too...

I belive you started this mess by calling me an arrogant american, and then calling me a child. I went down to your level with the spelling issue.

Hey everyone on this board, dont disagree with anything Sir Terry says, you will be labeled an arrogant american and a child.

I'm done with you Terry!!! Bye!!


Okay, Let me get this straight, you need a SUV for your dog and yourself? You are kidding right? Do you go off road? If not, then why do you need a 4 wheel drive? They do make 4 wheel drive cars that are much more fuel efficient than a SUV you know.



Right! I have a black lab that comfortably sits in the passenger seat of my ugly hybrid. He can also comfortably sit on the floor even when I have had passengers(my friends love my dog).





My best friend who commutes with me to work is 6'4". He finds my ugly hybrid VERY comfortable.(he would not ride in it if otherwise) And you need a SUV. I am not saying that you shouldn't buy a SUV, what I am saying is that your choice is part of why gas prices are so high, and why you shouldn't ***** on bit about it.

Lastly, I am more about the issue which is much larger than how words are spelled. One of the most known online debate tricks is when you have nothing intelligent to offer to the discussion, then you insult the other persons spelling, or vocabulary. That is called spin, and this is a no spin zone.

[shokhead]

There's always been suv's and trucks,just a more buying them now and they have no effect on the gas problem because there isnt a gas problem,just rich wanting to get richer,come on. I bet prices will level out or drop a few pennys and then,oh by the way,summer is coming so opps,there goes the gas prices. Then after school starts up same thing and then,opps,shutting down some plants,there goes the price. I dont recall them saying we are driving to much more. Now maybe more new driver.. My fav story was a few years back,they asked us in Lakewood to really cut down on using water,i think it was 10%. We did such a great job it was 25%. Our reward,higher water prices. Why. They said darn you,you saved to much and we had to lay workers off and you made so many new problems that your water is going up. I've never worried about saving water since then. Like my friend likes to say,its all BS.

[Duds]

Excellent points.

I rember not too long ago, maybe two years ago, gas was like $1.25 give or take. I cant imagine THAT so many people bought so many SUVs in two years that it caused the gas prices to increase more than a dollar.

SUVs arent the problem


There's always been suv's and trucks,just a more buying them now and they have no effect on the gas problem because there isnt a gas problem,just rich wanting to get richer,come on. I bet prices will level out or drop a few pennys and then,oh by the way,summer is coming so opps,there goes the gas prices. Then after school starts up same thing and then,opps,shutting down some plants,there goes the price. I dont recall them saying we are driving to much more. Now maybe more new driver.. My fav story was a few years back,they asked us in Lakewood to really cut down on using water,i think it was 10%. We did such a great job it was 25%. Our reward,higher water prices. Why. They said darn you,you saved to much and we had to lay workers off and you made so many new problems that your water is going up. I've never worried about saving water since then. Like my friend likes to say,its all BS.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There's always been suv's and trucks,just a more buying them now and they have no effect on the gas problem because there isnt a gas problem,just rich wanting to get richer,come on. I bet prices will level out or drop a few pennys and then,oh by the way,summer is coming so opps,there goes the gas prices. Then after school starts up same thing and then,opps,shutting down some plants,there goes the price. I dont recall them saying we are driving to much more. Now maybe more new driver.. My fav story was a few years back,they asked us in Lakewood to really cut down on using water,i think it was 10%. We did such a great job it was 25%. Our reward,higher water prices. Why. They said darn you,you saved to much and we had to lay workers off and you made so many new problems that your water is going up. I've never worried about saving water since then. Like my friend likes to say,its all BS.

I think anyone who says that SUV aren't a problem is seriously in denial, or totally ignorant of how market forces work. Back in the 70's(when I was a little kid) we had a serious gas shortage. Back then cars where not fuel efficient at all. The Japanese begin introducing smaller more fuel efficient cars(American car companies were asleep at the wheel) and they sold like hotcakes. We began to drive less, plan trips better, and use more efficient cars when we did drive, inventory loosened up, prices went down.

Since those years we have gone back to using gas guzzling cars, and we now have a added pressure, China and India. Both countries fuel needs have exploded, and OPEC really underestimated how much both countries along with ours needed. Tight inventories mean higher prices. If we drove more fuel efficient cars, plan trips, and took public transportation, this would reduce the amount of oil we use, and prices would ease as inventories of oil increased. That is called supply and demand. The more demand and tighter oil inventories are, the higher the price. So our increased purchases of SUV and gas guzzling trucks over the last 3-4 years have a direct correlation to the prices we are currently paying.

You can bury your head in the sand on this issue, but you will pay a heavy price for it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

To blame the cost of gas on SUV's is absurd. How long has the V-8 been around? A long time, they've been in pick up trucks for many many years now. Remember the old muscle car days? I seem to hear a lot about the big V-8's they had too...

To deny that SUV's are not contributing to the problem is plain ignorance and denial. V-8's have been around forever, however their sales in the past have been small in comparison to more fuel efficient cars. Now the percentage of V-8's sold has dramatically increased, along with the sales of SUV. They use more gas. More gas leads to increased oil imports. More imports from our country along with China and India leads to falling world oil inventory. Falling world inventory means increased commodity price, and hence increased gas prices. The correlation between sales of inefficient cars and increased gas prices is so easy to see, that a blind person wouldn't have trouble pointing it out.


I belive you started this mess by calling me an arrogant american, and then calling me a child. I went down to your level with the spelling issue.

No, I didn't call you a ignorant American(please read what I said again) I called your thought process arrogant, not you. Your response was immature hence you being called a child. I still don't care about you correcting my spelling, that is nothing more than spin.


Hey everyone on this board, dont disagree with anything Sir Terry says, you will be labeled an arrogant american and a child.

I'm done with you Terry!!! Bye!!

Everyone who frequents this board has disagreed with me at least once, and they were never labeled arrogant or a child. It is only when you respond immaturely, and present a poorly thought out perspective that you get labeled those things.

By the way, my moniker is Sir Terrence, not Terry dude!

[shokhead]

BS. Nobody changed cars and after the gas supply was back,everyone went back to the way they drove and went on trips just like before. You might have been a kid but i was in line for gas so i do remember. I never,ever heard any of my friends or our parents have any concern about getting a 6 instead of a V8 or looking at a smaller car,never ever. Nobody cared about price,only that there was gas. The press,paper and tv are good about making it a bigger deal then it is. It is what it is, like you said,we demand it and they supply it,for more profit.

[Duds]

We're just arrogant Americans, that what it boils down to


BS. Nobody changed cars and after the gas supply was back,everyone went back to the way they drove and went on trips just like before. You might have been a kid but i was in line for gas so i do remember. I never,ever heard any of my friends or our parents have any concern about getting a 6 instead of a V8 or looking at a smaller car,never ever. Nobody cared about price,only that there was gas. The press,paper and tv are good about making it a bigger deal then it is. It is what it is, like you said,we demand it and they supply it,for more profit.

[shokhead]

Boy,isnt that the truth! And loving every minute of it ;) . LOL

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

BS. Nobody changed cars and after the gas supply was back,everyone went back to the way they drove and went on trips just like before. You might have been a kid but i was in line for gas so i do remember. I never,ever heard any of my friends or our parents have any concern about getting a 6 instead of a V8 or looking at a smaller car,never ever. Nobody cared about price,only that there was gas. The press,paper and tv are good about making it a bigger deal then it is. It is what it is, like you said,we demand it and they supply it,for more profit.

Your perceptions and reality are not in sync. It is a known fact(read Woochifers post) the small car sales far outstripped sales of V-8's and trucks during the gas shortages of the 70's. Toyota and Nissan sold more cars during and after the crises. Sales of smaller cars far outstripped sales of V-8's in that period.

Maybe your friends and family didn't have any concerns, but the rest of America certainly did. Check out the automobile companies that grew the most in the 80's. It wasn't Ford, Chrysler, or GM that is for sure.

[Duds]

Maybe once Congress gets steroids in baseball figured out, they can work on the gas problem. Now that Terry Schiavo has passed away, they can devote more time to this issue...

I wonder why the price of cds hasnt gone down? I mean, afterall, sales of cds have been on a steady decline for years now, yet the price hasnt dropped off?


Boy,isnt that the truth! And loving every minute of it ;) . LOL

[paul_pci]

I think anyone who says that SUV aren't a problem is seriously in denial, or totally ignorant of how market forces work. Back in the 70's(when I was a little kid) we had a serious gas shortage. Back then cars where not fuel efficient at all. The Japanese begin introducing smaller more fuel efficient cars(American car companies were asleep at the wheel) and they sold like hotcakes. We began to drive less, plan trips better, and use more efficient cars when we did drive, inventory loosened up, prices went down.

Since those years we have gone back to using gas guzzling cars, and we now have a added pressure, China and India. Both countries fuel needs have exploded, and OPEC really underestimated how much both countries along with ours needed. Tight inventories mean higher prices. If we drove more fuel efficient cars, plan trips, and took public transportation, this would reduce the amount of oil we use, and prices would ease as inventories of oil increased. That is called supply and demand. The more demand and tighter oil inventories are, the higher the price. So our increased purchases of SUV and gas guzzling trucks over the last 3-4 years have a direct correlation to the prices we are currently paying.

You can bury your head in the sand on this issue, but you will pay a heavy price for it.


I definitely agree. My joke about the Hummer indicates so: Whenever you see a Hummer, you know where they're going: the gas station.

[Duds]

Not all SUVs get 8 mpg like the hummer does.



I definitely agree. My joke about the Hummer indicates so: Whenever you see a Hummer, you know where they're going: the gas station.

[Woochifer]

BS. Nobody changed cars and after the gas supply was back,everyone went back to the way they drove and went on trips just like before. You might have been a kid but i was in line for gas so i do remember. I never,ever heard any of my friends or our parents have any concern about getting a 6 instead of a V8 or looking at a smaller car,never ever. Nobody cared about price,only that there was gas. The press,paper and tv are good about making it a bigger deal then it is. It is what it is, like you said,we demand it and they supply it,for more profit.

Reality check time -- people DID alter their behavior during the two previous gas crises. All you gotta do is look at how the car buying market drastically shifted to smaller cars starting in the mid-70s. When the price of gas more than doubles in a matter of months (remember when gas went from $0.25/gallon to about $0.50/gallon), and you have gas rationing (remember the gas lines, and only being able to buy gas on alternate days depending on if your license plate ended in an odd or even number?), you better believe that people were scrambling to cut back on their fuel consumption.

The Arab oil embargo directly led to the rise of Japanese car sales in the U.S. Back then, midsized Japanese cars were not sold in the U.S. All that they marketed were their compact cars, and once the gas prices spiked, a lot of people in my neighborhood traded in their V-8 jalopies for Toyotas, Datsuns, and Hondas. My dad traded in his old V-8 Plymouth Fury for a VW Beetle. People initially bought those cars for their fuel economy, but soon found that they were pretty well designed and reliable, so they stuck with the Japanese nameplates even after gas prices went back down.

Don't believe that people were buying smaller cars? Just check a sales chart for cars in the early-80s and you'd see that the top selling cars were typically the Ford Escort, the Chevy Chevette, the Chrysler K-cars, and/or the Chevy Cavalier. All of these were four cylinder vehicles that got around 30 MPG and weighed less than 3,000 lbs. The overall vehicle fleet peaked in fuel mileage in 1986, and the overall fuel economy for the cars that we buy has gone down ever since. No coincidence that the mid-80s was when people began to once again expect that cheap gas was their birthright, rather than the fleeting commodity that it can be. When people are no longer confident in the stability of gas prices, then they adjust their habits at that point.

Like I said, it does not take much of a shock to the balance between supply and demand to create huge price fluctuations. OPEC tries to regulate the supply of oil so that it maintains a rough equilibrium, and systemic changes to the system are now making it more difficult to maintain that equilibrium. Increased global demand for fuel has made the entire system more precarious than before. Equally precarious is that we now import more of our oil than ever before, all the while increasing our consumption (driving less fuel efficient cars and building homes in the boonies that require two-hour work commutes). Don't think higher gas prices change how we buy cars? Just look at the price premiums and waiting lists for hybrids, compared to the incentives, rebates, and sharp sales decreases for the big SUVs.

[Woochifer]

I wonder why the price of cds hasnt gone down? I mean, afterall, sales of cds have been on a steady decline for years now, yet the price hasnt dropped off?

And if the price remains steady and the record companies do not try to increase demand by adding value to the product, then the sales will continue to decline.


Not all SUVs get 8 mpg like the hummer does.

Right, like the ultra economical 13 MPG Dodge Durango!

[shokhead]

Well i sure dont know who was buying all these small cars because it wasnt where i grew up. A nice little mid-class white place.

[MomurdA]

Has anybody who owns an suv ever even taken it 'offroad'? Seriously. And i dont want to hear how you one time had to use 4wd just because it was snowing or you went camping and it was muddy. People buy suvs cuz they think they are safer than cars because they weigh twice as much. That is why the worst drivers in the world drive suvs and minivans. Have you ever seen a competent driver behind the wheel of one? Well, they also flip over twice as much and are involved in more fatal crashes than automobiles. And none of them get over 20mpg, except maybe a couple of the hondas. Passenger cars are no better nowadays either, with 'great' cars(according to paid-for-by-the-auto-industry-mags) like the Chrysler 300C getting a whopping 13 mpg. Even some Hondas and Toyotas dont get 20 mpg anymore. Its all because the average idiotic american thinks that a 300 hp vehicle will get them home faster or get them a finer piece of a$$.
Some poster before me had it right:
Its all BS.

[dean_martin]

Little late responding to this post by the Smokester, but I was made aware of the following website today:

http://www.gasbuddy.com/

Apparently, you can type in your zip code and it will tell you where the lowest gas prices are in your area.

[Woochifer]

Well i sure dont know who was buying all these small cars because it wasnt where i grew up. A nice little mid-class white place.

Well, the early-80s fuel crisis occurred when I was living in south Orange County. Is that white bread middle class suburban enough?

Just because you didn't see it in front of you does not mean that it did not happen. The sales data and the huge gains in market share by Japanese auto makers during that era point to a huge behavioral change that correlated directly to these fuel crises. California was one of the first places where imports outsold domestic cars, and that happened not long after the Arab oil embargo. Why did it happen? The imported nameplates knew how to design small fuel efficient cars better than Detroit did (higher gas prices, denser areas, shorter commutes overseas meant that European and Japanese car companies had to design cars around those conditions), and had a lot more experience making them.

Americans may not have stuck with smaller cars once fuel prices went back down, but they maintained their liking for imported nameplates. And the Japanese car makers in particular responded by designing their cars bigger (the current Civic is actually larger and heavier than the original Accord, just as the current Corolla is about the same size as the original Camry).

[shokhead]

I use to sit on the corner and count cars with friends and see who would get to 100 first. It wasnt Honda or fricken toy. I dont care what stats you find,i'm telling you what was real life,not stats. I'm also not talking about 80's but more like 73. All this means nothing because SUV's have nothing to do with it,nothing. Its greed,not gas shortage.

[Woochifer]

I use to sit on the corner and count cars with friends and see who would get to 100 first. It wasnt Honda or fricken toy. I dont care what stats you find,i'm telling you what was real life,not stats. I'm also not talking about 80's but more like 73. All this means nothing because SUV's have nothing to do with it,nothing. Its greed,not gas shortage.

Has nothing to do with what stats are telling you, it's reality. You're judging what "real life" is strictly based on what you saw in front of you, and that presumes that what you see in front of you represents reality for everybody, which of course unless you're God, we all know is not true. Sales figures are what they are, and I'm simply going by what the sales charts said AND what I saw in my own neighborhood.

You can't argue with how many units of a particular car got sold, because in statistical terms that's a 100% sample. What you observed on a street corner is an unrepresentative sample that doesn't have applicability for anybody else -- it's got geographic bias, unreliable observational value, no time series comparison, etc. It would be like me concluding observing that 90% of the patrons at my local McDonald's at lunchtime today looked like teenagers, and then turning around and concluding that EVERY McDonald's therefore has 90% teenage patronage at all times. Doesn't make sense, does it.

Saying that SUVs have nothing to do with the upward spike in fuel prices is also BS. EVERYTHING that increases demand on fuel consumption puts upward pressures on gas prices, assuming that production does not keep pace with demand. SUVs are part of the overall equation that increases consumption. Simple economics, and human greed is part of it as well (why do you think prices spike upward so sharply during times of perceived shortage?), but decline in demand and the resultant tumbles in price are also part of it. It doesn't take much movement in demand either up or down to create huge movements in price in either direction. To say that SUVs have nothing to do with it presumes one of two things -- that the normal relationships between supply and demand do not apply to the fuel market, or increased use of SUVs reduces demand for fuel or magically raises production of fuel. And none of these scenarios can be logically defended IMO.

[Duds]

If oyu dont use your SUV for off-roading, you shouldnt have bought one? that's insane. People buy SUV's because they have large families and dont want a mini van or station wagon. I live in NY, we get a lot of snow. That when i use 4WD, and i use it a lot. 4WD in the snow is a great help, much safer.

The worst drivers in the world are people who drive SUV's and mini vans? got any proof? I see a lot of terrible drivers driving little Japanese imports, I also see a lot of women putting on make up while driving 60-65 mph on a highway. Gee, they must be safe drivers though.

For those who think the only solution to the gas problem is to buy a hybrid, well they better start talking **** on everyone without a hybrid, not just those who own SUVs. Using their mentality, if you dont own a hybrid you arent being economical, so why arent they lashing out at the mini van owners or the owners of cars with V-8s or V-6's???


Has anybody who owns an suv ever even taken it 'offroad'? Seriously. And i dont want to hear how you one time had to use 4wd just because it was snowing or you went camping and it was muddy. People buy suvs cuz they think they are safer than cars because they weigh twice as much. That is why the worst drivers in the world drive suvs and minivans. Have you ever seen a competent driver behind the wheel of one? Well, they also flip over twice as much and are involved in more fatal crashes than automobiles. And none of them get over 20mpg, except maybe a couple of the hondas. Passenger cars are no better nowadays either, with 'great' cars(according to paid-for-by-the-auto-industry-mags) like the Chrysler 300C getting a whopping 13 mpg. Even some Hondas and Toyotas dont get 20 mpg anymore. Its all because the average idiotic american thinks that a 300 hp vehicle will get them home faster or get them a finer piece of a$$.
Some poster before me had it right:
Its all BS.

[shokhead]

Has nothing to do with what stats are telling you, it's reality. You're judging what "real life" is strictly based on what you saw in front of you, and that presumes that what you see in front of you represents reality for everybody, which of course unless you're God, we all know is not true. Sales figures are what they are, and I'm simply going by what the sales charts said AND what I saw in my own neighborhood.

You can't argue with how many units of a particular car got sold, because in statistical terms that's a 100% sample. What you observed on a street corner is an unrepresentative sample that doesn't have applicability for anybody else -- it's got geographic bias, unreliable observational value, no time series comparison, etc. It would be like me concluding observing that 90% of the patrons at my local McDonald's at lunchtime today looked like teenagers, and then turning around and concluding that EVERY McDonald's therefore has 90% teenage patronage at all times. Doesn't make sense, does it.

Saying that SUVs have nothing to do with the upward spike in fuel prices is also BS. EVERYTHING that increases demand on fuel consumption puts upward pressures on gas prices, assuming that production does not keep pace with demand. SUVs are part of the overall equation that increases consumption. Simple economics, and human greed is part of it as well (why do you think prices spike upward so sharply during times of perceived shortage?), but decline in demand and the resultant tumbles in price are also part of it. It doesn't take much movement in demand either up or down to create huge movements in price in either direction. To say that SUVs have nothing to do with it presumes one of two things -- that the normal relationships between supply and demand do not apply to the fuel market, or increased use of SUVs reduces demand for fuel or magically raises production of fuel. And none of these scenarios can be logically defended IMO.

Wow,i didnt know we has so many SUV"S from 73 on when gas really started going up and up. Let me repeat,if you think SUV'S are the problem,then your confused. Thats news hype. If you guys are into stats,check out profit margins for Arco and others and see if they are making any? Like i said,gas is the least of my problems so give me 300HP anyday.

[Woochifer]

Wow,i didnt know we has so many SUV"S from 73 on when gas really started going up and up. Let me repeat,if you think SUV'S are the problem,then your confused. Thats news hype. If you guys are into stats,check out profit margins for Arco and others and see if they are making any? Like i said,gas is the least of my problems so give me 300HP anyday.

And 1974 was when you saw the first huge upward spike in compact car sales -- direct response to the oil crisis. 55MPH speed limit was implemented, people drove less and/or switched to more efficient cars, and overall fuel consumption went down. Once that happened, fuel prices went back down. The second gas crisis hit in the early-80s, which coincided with the Ford Escort and Chevy Chevette topping the car sales charts. Once again, that helped reduce fuel consumption.

Along with increased oil production, the reduced demand sent prices back down through the floor throughout the rest of the 80s. Oil companies and oil-dependent regions that were flush with profits just a few years earlier, were saddled with huge losses (just look at what happened to the Houston economy in the mid-80s). In inflation-adjusted terms, the mid-80s had some of the cheapest gas in history, and that was when demand for less fuel efficient cars began to increase once again. (the average fuel economy for cars purchased in the U.S. peaked in 1986, and decreased every year until a couple of years ago)

I never said that SUVs are THE problem, show me where I said that. I said that SUVs are PART OF the problem because they increase overall demand for fuel, just as anything else that increases fuel consumption does if production cannot keep up. Because global demand for oil is higher than before, it does not take much of an increase in consumption to spike prices upward. The economics of any scarce commodity provide ample opportunity for price gouging during shortages, but on the flip side, the prices also correct themselves very quickly with relatively minor reductions in demand. Sorry, but if you think that SUVs have "nothing" to do with gas prices, then you're basically trying to tell me that supply and demand are not related. And I doubt that anyone who's taken basic econ will agree with that concept.

[shokhead]

Havent taken basic econ. :o

[piece-it pete]

Seemed like a good time to rip the scab off this - gas just hit $3.08 here.

This hurricane shows that production and distribution capacity has a lot to do with the price of gas. Yes, consumption plays a huge part. But to ignore the fact that we will not allow more production to be built in this country is a huge problem! The world may be running out of oil but for now it's still there, sitting in the ground.

Drilling where there might be oil, this makes perfect sense. No, Alaska won't solve all our problems, but anything that increases supply is a help - the same effect as driving cars with better gas milage.

There isn't much our gov't can do that it isn't doing already. It is in every politicians' best interest to keep the price of gas down - look at what's happening to Bush now. Oil prices are set by the world market.

Pete

[Woochifer]

Seemed like a good time to rip the scab off this - gas just hit $3.08 here.

This hurricane shows that production and distribution capacity has a lot to do with the price of gas. Yes, consumption plays a huge part. But to ignore the fact that we will not allow more production to be built in this country is a huge problem! The world may be running out of oil but for now it's still there, sitting in the ground.

Drilling where there might be oil, this makes perfect sense. No, Alaska won't solve all our problems, but anything that increases supply is a help - the same effect as driving cars with better gas milage.

There isn't much our gov't can do that it isn't doing already. It is in every politicians' best interest to keep the price of gas down - look at what's happening to Bush now. Oil prices are set by the world market.

Pete


Well, any spikes in prices at the pump right now is nothing more than price gouging and taking advantage of market perception. The futures prices are trading at levels that make $3/gallon gasoline a foregone conclusion, but the gas being sold at the pump right now got traded earlier at far lower prices. It's no coincidence that oil company profits go through the roof during times of crisis.

You're right about the balance between supply and demand. I'm just not sure that drilling in Alaska will do much in the long run given how rapidly the global demand for oil is expected to grow. With or without Alaska, I think we're in a situation where demand will grow faster than supply for a long time. Even if Alaska turns out to have a large oil supply under the Arctic reserve, that supply will all get traded globally and who knows how of it will actually be delivered for domestic use rather than exported overseas to rapidly growing markets like China and India, since oil companies are multinational in nature with no allegiance to any particular country (exceptions of course are the state-owned oil companies like China's CNOOC that tried to acquire Unocal).

As a country, I would much rather see us investing resources into exciting possibilities such as fuel cells, alternative fuel sources, intelligent transportation systems, renewable energy, plug in hybrids, etc. I've worked on a couple of projects dealing with energy production from biomass (discarded agricultural feedstocks, renewable and sustainable crop stocks, etc.), and IMO that is a lot more promising because it can dramatically increase the supply of ethanol (which is already used in gasoline and constitutes about 10 percent of the formulation in some states) from renewable sources. Thus far, public sector funding for research in this area has been minimal.

If we focus on planning for new ways of meeting future transportation demand rather than presuming that the status quo will meet transportation demand in perpetuity, then we might have a more sustainable situation on our hands by the time the first drops of oil get delivered by the Arctic reserve (which would be more than a decade from now). Rather than be a slave to the global oil market, to me it just makes more sense to create and incubate new markets that serve transportation. If it has the net effect of reducing our dependence on oil, all the better.

[piece-it pete]

Well, any spikes in prices at the pump right now is nothing more than price gouging and taking advantage of market perception. The futures prices are trading at levels that make $3/gallon gasoline a foregone conclusion, but the gas being sold at the pump right now got traded earlier at far lower prices. It's no coincidence that oil company profits go through the roof during times of crisis.

You're right about the balance between supply and demand. I'm just not sure that drilling in Alaska will do much in the long run given how rapidly the global demand for oil is expected to grow. With or without Alaska, I think we're in a situation where demand will grow faster than supply for a long time. Even if Alaska turns out to have a large oil supply under the Arctic reserve, that supply will all get traded globally and who knows how of it will actually be delivered for domestic use rather than exported overseas to rapidly growing markets like China and India, since oil companies are multinational in nature with no allegiance to any particular country (exceptions of course are the state-owned oil companies like China's CNOOC that tried to acquire Unocal).

As a country, I would much rather see us investing resources into exciting possibilities such as fuel cells, alternative fuel sources, intelligent transportation systems, renewable energy, plug in hybrids, etc. I've worked on a couple of projects dealing with energy production from biomass (discarded agricultural feedstocks, renewable and sustainable crop stocks, etc.), and IMO that is a lot more promising because it can dramatically increase the supply of ethanol (which is already used in gasoline and constitutes about 10 percent of the formulation in some states) from renewable sources. Thus far, public sector funding for research in this area has been minimal.

If we focus on planning for new ways of meeting future transportation demand rather than presuming that the status quo will meet transportation demand in perpetuity, then we might have a more sustainable situation on our hands by the time the first drops of oil get delivered by the Arctic reserve (which would be more than a decade from now). Rather than be a slave to the global oil market, to me it just makes more sense to create and incubate new markets that serve transportation. If it has the net effect of reducing our dependence on oil, all the better.

Wooch I absolutely agree. The problem is, any solution through alternates is quite far off, even if we all make a concerted effort to make it happen. Which is much more likely if gas stays at $3+ a gallon.

Sidenote: I saw one of the tabloids at the supermarket last night, World something-or-the-other, headline: WORLD OIL SUPPLY TO RUN OUT IN 6 MONTHS! Subheadlines: Global economy will crash, says experts. Millions to starve worldwide!

That did it. I'm parking the Grand Marquis and installing pedals on the Metro.

Pete

[GMichael]

I filled up yesterday at 2.579 per gallon. Today, the same pump says 2.959 per gallon. Some in town are as high as 3.159 per. Can't wait to see what they say on my way home tonight.

I've heard of prices over $6 per gallon in Georgia. Yikes! Maybe I won't sell the Harley. Maybe trade it in for a Honda 125cc.

[shokhead]

6 bucks around NO. Thats nice.

[GMichael]

Just spoke to a friend of mine who delivers fuel to local gas stations. He was told to stay home. Apparently local stations here will not be getting anymore deliveries "until further notice." Not sure of why, but that will drive prices through the roof. And when local stations are out? Uht Oh...

[JSE]

Last night here in Houston, I was driving down a busy street and saw two gas stations selling regular unleaded for $3.31 per gallon. Two blocks away the price was $2.71 per gallon. That's a 60 cent price difference within 2 blocks. After driving further, I found the average price to be about $2.90 to $3.00. So, are the stations selling it for $3.31 price gouging? I think they are.

The funny thing, there were about 30 cars lined up between the two stations selling gas for $3.31 and about five or six cars total at the station selling it for $2.71 two blocks away.

JSE

[GMichael]

Last night here in Houston, I was driving down a busy street and saw two gas stations selling regular unleaded for $3.31 per gallon. Two blocks away the price was $2.71 per gallon. That's a 60 cent price difference within 2 blocks. After driving further, I found the average price to be about $2.90 to $3.00. So, are the stations selling it for $3.31 price gouging? I think they are.

The funny thing, there were about 30 cars lined up between the two stations selling gas for $3.31 and about five or six cars total at the station selling it for $2.71 two blocks away.

JSE

Location location location. Was this station near an interstate?

[Woochifer]

Wooch I absolutely agree. The problem is, any solution through alternates is quite far off, even if we all make a concerted effort to make it happen. Which is much more likely if gas stays at $3+ a gallon.

Agreed that we're probably in a long-term situation with higher gas prices. Even so, we're still below the 1981 price peaks in inflation-adjusted terms (I read that the price of oil per barrel in 1981 would be equivalent to $90 today), and have the lowest gas prices in the world. We just happened to consume more than anybody else, just as the two most populous countries in the world are starting to discover the joys of driving and developing a roadway infrastructure to support private automobiles.

I think that a concerted effort to develop alternatives is definitely a long-term proposition, but so is oil exploration in the Arctic reserve. Personally, I think we need to think outside the box when it comes to transportation. China is modernizing at an almost frightening pace, and positioning themselves as a very formidable economic competitor. In their urban centers, their telecommunications infrastructure is already more advanced than ours, and they are well underway with developing one of the most advanced air transportation networks on the planet. They also have the first commercial high speed maglev rail service in the world currently operating in Shanghai, with plans to expand on that.

AND they are now building brand new eight-lane freeways everywhere, while our interstates have started showing signs of age. To compete with this, we really need to get our butts in gear and do better for our transportation needs than just figuring out ways of finding cheap oil. We did not become the economic marvel of the 20th century by perpetuating status quo approaches.


Sidenote: I saw one of the tabloids at the supermarket last night, World something-or-the-other, headline: WORLD OIL SUPPLY TO RUN OUT IN 6 MONTHS! Subheadlines: Global economy will crash, says experts. Millions to starve worldwide!

That did it. I'm parking the Grand Marquis and installing pedals on the Metro.

Pete

LOL ... I guess that in six months Elvis and Jim Morrison will jointly make the announcement that we are officially out of oil and should just go home and live off the land. At least that's a tabloid and not a best selling book! I remember some book that talked about the "Jupiter effect" and how when planets line up in a certain way, the gravitational forces would pull the Earth apart like an egg shell. The book predicted that this doomsday would occur in 1983 and thousands of copies were sold in 1982. After the DOA date passed, I saw lots of copies of the book in the bargain bins.

[piece-it pete]

Yep Chinas' position is somewhat enviable - start from scratch. The highway system (something like connecting EVERY CITY pop 500,000? and more) and phone/data networks particularly are awesome. And the maglev - us tech nerds have been waiting for that for decades! Wish I could ride it.

We've still got a better sewer system though. :)

I remember the Jupiter Effect - IIRC all the planets lined up on one side of the solar system. People are nuts.

I just 5 minutes ago talked to a coworker in California. He's refiniancing his house to install solar panels on his roof. It will generate enough to satisfy ALL his needs (electrical, that is :D ). $40,000 less a $16,000 tax credit. During the day it generates excess power which the electric company is required by law to buy back!

Pete

[Woochifer]

Yep Chinas' position is somewhat enviable - start from scratch. The highway system (something like connecting EVERY CITY pop 500,000? and more) and phone/data networks particularly are awesome. And the maglev - us tech nerds have been waiting for that for decades! Wish I could ride it.

That's a LOT of cities in a country with 1.4 billion people! There still aren't a lot of cars in China, but they're already building the highways that will someday jam up with commuters. That 30 mile maglev in Shanghai is supposedly just the beginning of an extensive intercity high speed rail network, plus there are something like 60 airports either under construction or in the planning stages.

Here in Cali, we've been studying high speed rail since the early-90s (I was involved in one of the early high speed rail studies that UC Berkeley sponsored) and the bond measure to fund the first leg keeps getting pushed back. Even conventional steel wheel on rail trains like the TGV in France (which have been clocked at 300 mph on test tracks, and go 200 mph during normal revenue service) would seem like science fiction compared to what we currently have. And forget about ever building a brand new major airport here -- too expensive, too many hurdles.

More tech geek bits -- my recollection's fuzzy, but I think that China was also looking at intelligent transportation systems (ITS) for their highways. This would entail embedding road sensors into the highway, allowing for automated vehicle operation. Since China's auto industry's just ramping up, implementing automation on this scale would be feasible. Much of the technology needed for ITS is already included with a lot of newer cars -- acceleration and braking controls would simply use existing cruise and traction control systems; destination planning would use data from existing GPS navigation systems; the only new devices that would need to be added would be the automated steering control and the transponder that communicates with these systems and the other vehicles. The benefit of ITS is that it greatly increases the lane capacity by bunching cars up within inches of one another, and saves fuel economy by maintaining a more constant traffic flow (cars also draft off of one another by running closer together).

These ITS roadway sensors were installed along a stretch of I-15 (they're still visible if you look down the middle of the #1 lane), north of San Diego in the early-90s and Caltrans put together an experimental fleet of ITS-capable vehicles. They did several successful tests, but the federal funding ran out and I don't know what's been happening in that area since then.


We've still got a better sewer system though. :)

Yup, and all things considered, we also have a much more reliable power grid than China. Apparently, they've got major problems trying to keep up with the rising power demand, and brownouts are common. China's also an environmental time bomb ready to go off. I've been reading about how polluted their waterways are getting, and that's caused huge spikes in the cancer rates for rural areas downstream from these gigantic industrial centers. And the air quality's going downhill in a hurry.


I just 5 minutes ago talked to a coworker in California. He's refiniancing his house to install solar panels on his roof. It will generate enough to satisfy ALL his needs (electrical, that is :D ). $40,000 less a $16,000 tax credit. During the day it generates excess power which the electric company is required by law to buy back!


I really like that kind of thinking. It's enterprising and forward thinking, yet focused on the big picture. My wife and I have looked into those solar system tax credits (and sticking it to the electric utility by feeding power back into the grid and having them pay us for it), but the upfront costs for installation were unfortunately outside of our budget.

[shokhead]

Gas can go as high as the gas companys feel like. Why? Because we need it. I see those BP ads on tv all the time and then see a BP gas station putting up 6 bucks a gallon for gas. They will get it too. The world shuts down without gas.

[Woochifer]

Gas can go as high as the gas companys feel like. Why? Because we need it. I see those BP ads on tv all the time and then see a BP gas station putting up 6 bucks a gallon for gas. They will get it too. The world shuts down without gas.

I think those stations in Georgia are putting up the $6 signs because there are legit supply chain interruptions there, and gas is in very short supply in those areas. Even so, that's still price gouging because either the wholesalers or the station owners or both originally got the gasoline for a lot less. But, if people are out there willing to pay that amount, then I guess it's been set correctly. What I think is more of a crock is stations in areas that are unaffected by the refinery shutdowns in the Gulf raising their gas prices by $.40-$.60 overnight.

[shokhead]

I think those stations in Georgia are putting up the $6 signs because there are legit supply chain interruptions there, and gas is in very short supply in those areas. Even so, that's still price gouging because either the wholesalers or the station owners or both originally got the gasoline for a lot less. But, if people are out there willing to pay that amount, then I guess it's been set correctly. What I think is more of a crock is stations in areas that are unaffected by the refinery shutdowns in the Gulf raising their gas prices by $.40-$.60 overnight.

Like you said,if people are willing{in other words,no choice}to pay that amount,then i guess it's been set correctly rather its 40-60 cents or 2 bucks more. Whatever the price,we have to pay.

[GMichael]

I filled up yesterday at 2.579 per gallon. Today, the same pump says 2.959 per gallon. Some in town are as high as 3.159 per. Can't wait to see what they say on my way home tonight.

I've heard of prices over $6 per gallon in Georgia. Yikes! Maybe I won't sell the Harley. Maybe trade it in for a Honda 125cc.

Wednesday = 2.579
Thursday = 2.959
Friday = 3.279
Saturday = ?.???
Sunday = 1 arm
Monday = 1 leg
Tuesday = first born
1 week later =

[GMichael]

The New York state Consumer Protection Board has set up a gas price hotline designed to allow consumers to report on businesses making excessive price hikes on gasoline. The toll-free phone line -- 1-800-214-4372

[keithant]

As long as Detroit keeps pumping out 10,000LB SUV's that 99% of the people who own don't need and Huge Pickum Up Trucks that 99% of the people who own don't use the prices will continue to go up! I know everyone in the US needs a 10,000 pound Ford excursion to take there one kid to soccer practice or to Walmart,but don't go and buy one of these Houses on wheels and then turn around and complain about how much it cost's to fill up the tank.I know there is a "Keep Up With The Jone's" mentallity in this country but come on folks.I drove through a car lot the other day and there was not one person looking at car's,everyone on the lot looking at vehicles were in the SUV and Pickup truck area and this is at a time when gas is $3.00 a gallon, i don't know but i guess everyone other than me is independently wealthy?So don't complain for your own stupidity!!