Just wondering.....

Jake is right on on this one. We have for years driven "fat" cars because gas prices allowed it when we could all do better. The one time this actually occurred was the 70s and early to mid 80s.

People go "wow" at the thought of a 2,000 lb car, but they were run of the mill back then. A Scirocco? 1800 lbs in original form. Fiestas, Omnis, Corolloas, Dastun B210s, all LIGHT, fuel efficient cars.

So it is not only the big SUVs (like the one I drive 2-3 times a week) that are killing us, it is the sad fact thatmost four door sedans are now porkers. The new Shelby Mustang weighs 4,000! how is that???

I've just picked up a Lotus Exige with the little Toyota powerplant to commute in. Other than getting in and out, the 30 mph is REALLY nice and I had forgotten what it was like to drive a small, light car. Very different. Very cool. Makes the TR8 feel like a tank.
 
the cars are getting bloated, with features, options and safety changes from DOT. My jetta is a 3200# porker, and the only reason it gets 27mpg average is due to the turbo on the 4cyl. But then I got 25 on my 8v rabbit with horrid gearing that would simply scream down the highway at 70k miles.
 
the cars are getting bloated, with features, options and safety changes from DOT. My jetta is a 3200# porker,
[/b]
Click to expand...


Thats true, but even still, light cars are out there, but the masses want comfort and safety. The DOT is only partly responsible.

Dash airbags, knee airbags, side curtain airbags...some cars have a dozen airbags...And lots of cars have hundreds of pounds of "assist" motors...seats alone can weight over 50 pounds each. How about power trunk closers?? Or sliding doors that have multple motors? It all adds up. But nobody thinks about the cost of lugging around the 300 pounds of the 4 wheel drive system that never gets used, or any of that stuff when they buy the car. It's safer and more comfortable, so it's very desirable.
 
The comparison between the US and Europe has so many unknown variables that I can not make an educated conclusion due to lack of time to do the proper research. What would be interesting are the answers to the following questions.

If the price of gas were the same would they drive big inefficient SUV’s? Based on the comments many Europeans I have done business with over the past 17 years the answer is a resounding yes. But, at $7-8 a gallon for petrol and the huge tax penalties the government puts on buying a vehicle with over 2 litres displacement, they can’t afford it. There is also a tax break for diesel engines and for those who have ever taken a breath in a large city over there you know of what I’m talking about.

The public transit system is very good in Europe but how is it paid for? Do they subsidize it like we have to do here? If so, maybe the subsidies come for the tax paid on their gas. Are you in favor of $7-8 a gallon gas so the US can improve our public transportation system?

Have you ever bought food in Europe? From my experiences in Italy, Germany and England, it ain’t cheap and it ain’t easy to find. If Europeans had access to cheap food on every street corner like we do would they be fat and lazy too? Try buying any size T-Bone or Ribeye there and you’ll know what I’m talking about. Even if you could find one you could not afford it. When the Italian techs would come over here to service the equipment they would eat steak every night for dinner. I’m serious, every night. At that rate do you think they’d be fat and lazy before too long?

To an extent every country that imports oil pays about the same per barrel. After that it’s refining, transportation and marketing costs and taxes. Our gas prices have been cheap in the past because the cost of a barrel of oil was cheap. There’s nothing “artificial” about it. I think its human nature to take advantage of whatever is cheap and plentiful. Unfortunately, history shows its also human nature to do the same until nothing is left.
 
I just finished a two-week driving tour of the eastern US. Following are the prices I paid for mid-grade fuel:

6/30/2006 Cromwell, CT 86421 $3.259
6/30/2006 Snow Shoe, PA $2.939
6/30/2006 Seville, OH $2.979
7/3/2006 Downtown Indy $3.059
7/3/2006 Downtown St Louis $3.059
7/5/2006 Branson, MO $2.899
7/5/2006 OKC $2.799
7/7/2006 Wichita Falls, TX $2.859
7/7/2006 Burnett, TX $2.939
7/14/2006 Fredericksburg, TX $2.819
7/14/2006 Houston $2.979
7/15/2006 Baton Rouge $2.869
7/15/2006 Meridian, MS $3.059
7/15/2006 Rising Fawn, GA $2.799
7/15/2006 Greeneville, TN $2.899
7/16/2006 Winchester, VA $2.899
7/16/2006 Montague, NJ $3.059
7/16/2006 Cromwell, CT $3.299

I laugh when folks start talking about small cars in Europe versus large cars here. We are our own worst enemy in so many complicated ways; there's no silver bullet. What do you want: to save money or to consume less fuel? Guess what, they're pretty much diametrically-opposed missions.

I'd buy a second small economical vehicle to commute in if I was interested in using less fuel. However, by the time you figure in the cost of the car, sales tax, property tax, insurance, and registration costs, the car would have to get 125 mpg to make it pay off! I'm sure it's the same for others. Make that your only vehicle, you say? What about highway driving or towing my race car? You ever drive one of those little piss-vehicles on the highway long distances?

Because of the numerous ways we use our vehicles here in this country, the most ECONOMICAL answer to our vehicular needs is to buy one big truck that does it all. If I were motivated to save money I'd dump my Audi S4, sell the Ford V-10 van, sell the motorcycle, and buy a big four-door diesel pickup truck. I'd use it was my daily commuter *and* my tow vehicle *and* my highway travel vehicle to go places. It's the only vehicle that meets all normal missions...
 
Greg, true statement about $$ saved. There are a number of factors that do into "smaller" Euro cars. I guess my point is, why does a 4-door sedanhave to weigh 3500 lbs here? Jake and Tom answered it I think.

Tom, an interesting bit of history is what happened in post-war Europe vis a vis the US in regards to transport. Prior to the war, both countries principally used steam powered locomotives to move both freight and people.

After the war, Europe started from what in many ways was a clean slate, and yet rebuilt its train system. Some of it was Marshall Plan money, other portions were funded by taxation. The bottom line is that Europe threw its resources into public transit. And there is a reason for that -- it worked there, given the population density and distance between major cities. It is possible in Europe to build public transit accessible to all because all are close to it.

What did the US do? We certainly subsidized a form of transport as well -- the automobile and truck. We build an engineering marvel in less than 25 years -- the Eisenhower interstate highway system, all funded by US -- as in me and you. We also kept the price of gas down (some say artificially) by holding down the gas tax.

Why did we do this? Because, in the US IT WORKED. Just like public transit in Europe worked. It makes no sense to run a rail line from say Sumter SC to Kinston NC if only 3 people ride it a day. It does make sense to build a road (or system of roads) that people can use to choose to go to Kinston -- and then amortize the cost over the 100 year opeational life of the road.

It's no mystery why the US is car dependent and Europe (more at least) train dependent -- geography and population density dictated it, and the respective governments made rational (although I would say necessary) decisions based on those factors.

We simply could not have a mass transit system in the US that worked country wide. Hell, we can't even get it to work in our suburbanized mid-size cities. Europe didn't need an extensive huge interstate system due to the lack of distance, and had the density to support a train network (which is in some ways more efficient IN THAT ENVIRONMENT).
 
Jeff, you hit the nail on the head...population density and proximity.

But there's more. We Americans avoid mass transportation at every chance. I know plenty of people that drive into NYC instead of taking the train. They give me all sorts of BS reasons, but in the end, it costs them time and money...but they WANT to drive, and unlike say London, NYC hasn't decided to get serious about it.

If there was any common sense at all, NYC cabbies wouldn't choose Crown Vics as the cab of choice. And the city should prohibit them, based on the space consume alone.

Our mindsets are fundementally different. We look at the cars driven in Europe and think how silly they are, and they think the same of ours. I wonder about Toms SUV point?? I wonder if the guys he mentioned would really drive SUVs if they could. The roads are old, windy and much more narrow, parking is set up for smaller cars, heck, parking garages would be un navagable for many American barges.

When Europeans want to spend big on vehicles, it seems to me they do it in Audi A8s, BMW L series cars and the standard big Mercs and Rolls/ Bentlys. (Some of which get even worse milage than SUVS)

Does my driving two vehicles add up to fuel savings? Of course not! But then again, I don't have to drive a barge everyday, and the old Porsche was a cheap buy in that gets respecable mileage.
 
Jeff, population density and distance between centers is an excellent point that I think a lot of people including myself tend to forget when discussing mass transit. People tend to use what works best in their situation.

This in turn supports Greg’s post. A multi-tasker is the best bang for the buck and usually people use what works best in their situation. But as we all know, vehicles (cars, boats motorcycles, you name it) can stir up incredible passions that can not be ignored and distort all sense of logic and reality when making a buying decision. Usually, several vehicles of different types are required to satisfy this fate of man. Unfortunately, I am powerless against this dark power and presently own a Harley and an IT7. Oh, and an F250 four door diesel truck for everything else.
 
I've been told that cabs and cop cars are Crown Vics because of the killer fleet pricing offered and they are the best all around choice if you need to transport a couple of businessmen and their luggage to the airport, or say 3-4 bar hoppers on a Friday night, or 6-8 crack heads (if you stack 'em right) down to lock-up. People tend to use what is best for their situation.

I don't wonder if the guys I worked with would drive SUV's if they could because they did. They were like kids in a candy store at the car rental place. Big four door sedans or SUV's is all they wanted and rented. One VP rented some Chrysler convertable (I'd imagine smaller ragtops are available in Europe), came by during work hours just to see if I wanted to go for a ride. Look, I'm stating personal experience here, not wondering what would seem to make sense. BTW, one of those big plastic clamshell suitcases full of nothing but new Levi's jeans and Timberland shoes would go back with them every trip. They must have been real popular across the pond, so to say.

Now would they buy the same vehicle in Europe if they could afford it? Probably. Would it be practicle like here? Probably not. They would have to avoid some areas that their vehicle would not fit in just like I have to do with my '04 F250 Crew Cab 4x4. I took that SOB to South Beach one fine day while visiting my brother down there and you talk about tight. Not only in the tiny street lanes, but in the parking deck I swore to the attendant on entry that it would not fit, but I was wrong. That's why they have the white pipe hanging down prior to entry - you hit it there you'll get stuck inside.

Anyway, I do agree that americans for the most part feel the bigger and better, but that's us. We are fortunate that we can do it that way for whatever reason. I also agree with those who feel much of the rest of the world would do it that way too, if given they could. I mean, there's got to be a reason so many risk so much just to come here, right?
 
Wow, didn't realize I'd start such a discussion! I just find it interesting how the gas prices fluctuate-- and at times because of stupid things. For instance, gas in the Concord-Loudon, NH area fluctuated almost 25 cents the weekend of the Nextel Cup in the upward direction! Then, after the weekend was over, some stations kept at that price and others dropped their prices. In the western part of NH, gas is generally a dime cheaper that here in the central or eastern part of the state. Go figure. Up here, people are screaming for smaller cars. You wouldn't believe how fast you can sell a car you buy for $100 and make a profit. My problem is having that extra $100 to play with.....but, people will buy them. Motorcycles are quick sellers as well. I'm looking to downsize my 8 cyl Chevy plow truck to a smaller truck for my plow fleet. I already have a small Dodge plow truck and love it. I don't want to even think of using the bigger one to plow this winter.

Interesting about the housing prices. NH has one of the highest costs of housing in the country and our income level is not keeping up with the rise in housing costs. People are for the most part house poor up here, whether they rent or own. If you are lucky enough to get into a good deal, you have to hold on to it because you can't afford to move on for the most part.

Thanks for all the info. I've got so much to read now and to think about.

BTW, when I had my first car I could fill the gas tank for $5.00. When my boys were born, roughly $15.00 would fill the tank. Times have changed.
 
All this bitching about the oil companies is missing the mark entirely. And an earlier reference to executive salaries doesn't fly either. Do you think the execs made less money when the price was $2 per gal? Oil companies are publicly traded, so if the share-holders sign off on salaries/bonuses, who are we to bitch?

The simple truth is that the government makes far more money off every gallon of gas than oil companies do.

And if you want some other targets for your angst, how about:

Market speculators/traders - those trading in oil futures can whip up a pricing frenzy any time they want to. And every time there is the least little bit of unrest in the world, guess what they do? They bid up the price.

Tin-pot dictators and despots - Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Amadinejad would just love to drive the price of a barrel of oil to over $100 per. Watch the price of crude every time "Madman Mahmoud" opens his mouth about wiping Israel off the face of the earth, or spouting off about brandishing nuclear weapons. And Hugo runs a state-owned oil company. He can do whatever he wants; he has no share-holders to please.

Environmentalist nutjobs - who won't let us drill for our own oil anywhere because we might disturb the mating habits of a gnat, who vehemently oppose any mention of new nuclear powerplants, who have thrust down the gov't's throat all these years for the need to have all kinds of "boutique" fuel blends (over 50 nationwide) for every little region of the country when 5 or 6 would suffice, who have made it impossible to build any new oil refineries in the last 30 years so we are constantly running at max capacity.

Hey, I'll take the oil companies and their 6% profit margins any day. Can any of you help out with any of these other wackos?
 
The only thing I would add to this is how our diesel is so dirty and why we will not clean it up. This is what makes me go WHAT? IMO this is one area where the goverment should set a mandate and say that our diesel move down a bit on the sulfur content to be inline with what the rest of the world is doing.

Look up some info on the difference between US and over seas diesel and why ours is so dirty. I guess some car mfgs. are saying bye bye to the diesel market in the US.
 
***they reported a $10,000,000,000 in profit for that quarter alone. Not a bad quarter.***

Ya, Ya, Ya, sure & per some on this site beleive they do that kind of proffit at a 5% rate. :wacko:

I heard something on the national news last night about their proffit per minute & I still have not stoped crying.
 
Quoted from gran racing's link.

"Exxon reported a profit of $10.36 billion for the second three months of the year... but the company's quarterly revenues, up to $99 billion from $88.6 billion in the same quarter a year ago, fell short of the consensus estimate of more than $111 billion."

99B / 10.3B = 10.4%. My mistake, last quarter's profit was 10.4%, not 5.5%, that must be a multi-year average. Still, 10.4% is well within the acceptable profit margin of most US corporations.

I read yesterday that Honda made a 30% profit last quarter. That's almost three times what Exxon made. I'm way past crying, I'm thinking suicide. :rolleyes:

Let me translate one thing I've learned during the 17 years I have been investing in the stock market: If ya go an buy what ya love an what ya hate, it'll make ya rich, don't ya know.. And ya, sure, ya can be quoting me on that one too, eh. I learned the language working for a company HQ'd in Menomonee Falls.

In other words, smart money would own XOM (ticker symbol for ExxonMobile) rather than bitch about it. Unfortunately, its probably too late now. :(
 
Here in Northeast (Sayre PA about 40 minutes east of the Glen) Reg 2.99 Mid 3.11 premium 3.22 Diesel NOW 3.18 :bash_1_: . Exxon Profits 10B and the Idiots in Washington say there is no price :mad1: gouging :mad1: . all driven by supply and demand WEll I'm not an accountant but The Demand is there (right or wrong) if there where no SUPPLY there would be no product to sell to generate the 10 BILLION unless some one paid 10 Billion for the last gallon left. TW
 
Think of it another way...if someone came up to you and said, give me $10 and I'll probably give you back $11 somewhere down the road, but there's no guarantee"....would you do it???

Because that's the deal...they spend 10, they get back 11...hopefully. If hurricanes don't wipe out the refineries, or tankers don't sink...and so on.

yea, 10B DOES sound like a ton of extra money, but we don't HAVE to buy as much gas as we do, right??

Besides, when it comes to greed, it's tough to compete with the Enron (etc) guys, who really didn't provide anything, but tried to keep alot!
 
***I learned the language working for a company HQ'd in Menomonee Falls.***

& that boy with an ego got just what he deserved. Not nearly as Strong as he thought he was.
 
***I learned the language working for a company HQ'd in Menomonee Falls.***

& that boy with an ego got just what he deserved. Not nearly as Strong as he thought he was.
[/b]
Click to expand...

???? I don't follow. What boy? Someone local?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top