price of gas

[hairy]

6.0 gas 17mpg....mileage plus power....I would like to get the diesel for the jake brake while hauling stock trailers downhill, but I am not sure I want all the extra weight for a daily driver....

[backpack]

There hasn't been a new refinery built in 35 years or something? It's NIMBY syndrome just like Nukular power. My opinion is build refineries and nukes on former military bases.

Just FYI, that has almost nothing to do with it. Refining is not a very profitable operation, and the incredible amount of capital required to build a refinery discourages investment because it takes so long to make a return, and by the time it has paid for itself you end up having to do major upgrades to keep everything running. The thing I always wonder is why they don't charge more at the refining step... I guess there are a lot of reasons not to.

[Idris]

As Trackhead put it you guys will never get it. As wildstyle was hinting 30+mpg is not good. 50mpg (us gallon) is considered very average here. I personaly own a Landrover that gets only 32mpg (uk) so is considered very bad. It does normaly have 5 to 7 ski bums in it if it's going anywhere. At winter it did justify its existance by towing 23 cars out of our lane last winter.

A car here is only considered economical if it gets 75+mpg (us gallons) amd there are a quite a few available that manage that.

[Brock Landers]

Or they could build more refineries, and take the oil from Iraq so we actually benefit from "freeing" those douchebags, and pay less.

Of course, nobody discusses that. It's all "supply and demand"......

What a fucking sham.

Making more refineries would lower the price, but refineries are expensive and you cant put them anywhere. Refinery cant be in a place like Kansas or Idaho- needs to be easily accessible to pump the shit in and pump it out.

The oil companies arent there to lower prices. Theyre there to make money. And it isnt the executives solely looking to make money. Its all the shareholders (including execs) looking to make money. Chances are, many of the people in this thread have stock in some oil company whether they know it or not. If it didnt make money, they wouldnt invest and someone else would be owning/running the company, hiking prices, and making money.

Part of it is economics, part of it is finance. Running the oil companies is expensive as shit.

[HikeforTurns]

As Trackhead put it you guys will never get it. As wildstyle was hinting 30+mpg is not good. 50mpg (us gallon) is considered very average here. I personaly own a Landrover that gets only 32mpg (uk) so is considered very bad. It does normaly have 5 to 7 ski bums in it if it's going anywhere. At winter it did justify its existance by towing 23 cars out of our lane last winter.

A car here is only considered economical if it gets 75+mpg (us gallons) amd there are a quite a few available that manage that.

I love it how peoples shit doesnt seem to stink over in europe.

In case you didnt know, in the US alot of people drive a little farther to and from work and the mountains, unfortunately thats how we have it. But spare the holier-than-thou attitude please.

[hemas]

I love it how peoples shit doesnt seem to stink over in europe.

In case you didnt know, in the US alot of people drive a little farther to and from work and the mountains, unfortunately thats how we have it. But spare the holier-than-thou attitude please.

Yes, and thus economical (ie. less consuming) cars would make even more sense... Drive longer, have a car that consumes less.

Funnily enough, it seems to be just the opposite... Peeps in Yurp drive short distances with cars that don't consume much. And peeps in US drive big gas guzzling cars on longer trips.

[HikeforTurns]

Yes, and thus economical (ie. less consuming) cars would make even more sense... Drive longer, have a car that consumes less.

Funnily enough, it seems to be just the opposite... Peeps in Yurp drive short distances with cars that don't consume much. And peeps in US drive big gas guzzling cars on longer trips.

I agree with you on this. When I can afford to buy a vehicle that gets the above stated fuel efficiency and can still get me into the mountains (ie: 4wd roads) I will gladly purchase one. Unfortunately I can only afford one car, and in the US our options are more limited ( hybrid suvs, subarus maybe, but we dont have the diesels like in yurp, why? ask the government.) I live and work in Denver, its where my job and family are. Yes the mountains are a farther drive then say, living in Chamonix. But thats the way it goes, not everyone can afford to live right in the mountains that they love.

[truckeelocal]

I agree with you on this. When I can afford to buy a vehicle that gets the above stated fuel efficiency and can still get me into the mountains (ie: 4wd roads) I will gladly purchase one. Unfortunately I can only afford one car, and in the US our options are more limited ( hybrid suvs, subarus maybe, but we dont have the diesels like in yurp, why? ask the government.) I live and work in Denver, its where my job and family are. Yes the mountains are a farther drive then say, living in Chamonix. But thats the way it goes, not everyone can afford to live right in the mountains that they love.

Strange that the Europeans don't seem to 'need' 4x4 quite as much as us. I lived in Munich (close to the mountains). Snow tires, no 4x4. I used to live in Milan (close to the mountains). Not even snow tires, let alone 4x4. I wouldn't, however, use the Italians as a model of applying common sense in the mountains. Oh, and I live in the mountains. With part time 4x4 on one of the vehicles - rarely, if ever, engaged. Hell I used to have a 70s era RWD domestic beast where the chains were NEVER used. Why do we need 4WD/AWD again ?

[powdork]

A car here is only considered economical if it gets 75+mpg (us gallons) amd there are a quite a few available that manage that.

Got to call BS here. Show me one production automobile that gets over 70 mpg (us) and I'll start to take you seriously.

These cars do the best, and these are Imperial Gallons
Honda Insight 2 seater (petrol) 80.0 mpg
Citroen C1 1398 M5 (diesel) 68.9 mpg
Toyota Aygo 1.4 D-4D 3 & 5 door (diesel) 68.9 mpg
Citroen C2 1398 M5 (diesel) 65.7 mpg
Citroen C3 1398 A5 (diesel) 65.7 mpg
FIAT Panda 1248 M5 (diesel) 65.7 mpg
Toyota Prius 1.5 VVT-i Hybrid (petrol) 65.7 mpg

That Honda Insight 2 seater gets 67 mpg (us) and can't carry your skis.

[str8line]

As Hop says, we are fucked due to, "progress". Forced sacrifice is the only thing that will change American's hedonistic, entitled view. WE are the ones fucking the world more than any other country.

Even though I drive a Duramax(I tow a 10,000lb. trailer and haul stuff), I agree that we should tax the hell out of gasoline and diesel (over the road semi's excluded) to force our population to shift to higher MPG vehicles. Either that or we should create legislation that forces auto manufacturers to increase their fleet MPG average for vehicles sold in the U.S. Going the tax route would create extra tax revenue that could be put toward renewable energy projects and combating global warming.

[truckeelocal]

As Hop says, we are fucked due to, "progress". Forced sacrifice is the only thing that will change American's hedonistic, entitled view. WE are the ones fucking the world more than any other country.

Even though I drive a Duramax(I tow a 10,000lb. trailer and haul stuff), I agree that we should tax the hell out of gasoline and diesel (over the road semi's excluded) to force our population to shift to higher MPG vehicles. Either that or we should create legislation that forces auto manufacturers to increase their fleet MPG average for vehicles sold in the U.S. Going the tax route would create extra tax revenue that could be put toward renewable energy projects and combating global warming.

Why not tax the hell out of semi's and get them off the road too ? Put long distance freight onto trains. While we're at it why not tax the hell out of Av-gas too ? Currently 19c if I remember correctly.
Hey, and I drive a 3/4 ton. Not much, but I have one. My bad

[powdork]

Why do we need 4WD/AWD again ?

Some of us live in the mountains, not near them. Try driving to Kirkwood 5 times a week with no 4wd. Yeah, you can use chains, but they don't do much to improve mileage. I'll do lots of things to help. Ride my bike, carpool, take shorter showers, whatever, but my car will always be a subaru.

[hemas]

Some of us live in the mountains, not near them. Try driving to Kirkwood 5 times a week with no 4wd. Yeah, you can use chains, but they don't do much to improve mileage. I'll do lots of things to help. Ride my bike, carpool, take shorter showers, whatever, but my car will always be a subaru.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he wasn't speaking of ya...

More likely of a person driving a huuge 4WD pickup in downtown Boulder (and mebbe once a millenium using it to tow something)...

Sub's have s pretty good economy, as 4wd cars go... Some trucks with lousy big gas V8's in the other hand.

[str8line]

Why not tax the hell out of semi's and get them off the road too ? Put long distance freight onto trains. While we're at it why not tax the hell out of Av-gas too ? Currently 19c if I remember correctly.
Hey, and I drive a 3/4 ton. Not much, but I have one. My bad

Didn't think of that, but that makes sense. What is our rail capacity? What percentage of long distance semi's could we eliminate without overwhelming the railroads?

[Rontele]

Didn't think of that, but that makes sense. What is our rail capacity? What percentage of long distance semi's could we eliminate without overwhelming the railroads?

Rail is inefficient and costly compared to long-haul trucking. If it wasn't the market would have corrected for this.

Rail is efficient, however for transporting large bulk items like coal, chemicals, commodities such as wheat etc. Not consumer goods, which the market demands fast delivery.

[truckeelocal]

Some of us live in the mountains, not near them. Try driving to Kirkwood 5 times a week with no 4wd. Yeah, you can use chains, but they don't do much to improve mileage. I'll do lots of things to help. Ride my bike, carpool, take shorter showers, whatever, but my car will always be a subaru.

My daily vehicles are Suubs. Having said that I'm going to do something absurd today. I'm going to bike to the Earth Day celibrations at Squaw. Squaw hosting Earth Day ? The hypocracy. 99% of celebrants driving to Squaw, 95% in SUVs and the like, to observe Earth Day ? The hypocracy. Me whining about it while living somewhere that couldn't naturally sustain year-round habitation ? The hypocracy. But a hypocrite on a bicycle. Today anyway

[powdork]

Squaw hosting Earth Day ?

I was hoping to take the kids up there today, but alas, they're with their mom. Too bad the one down here on the South Shore is so weak compared to Squaws.

I think it's a good thing Squaw is holding it. Mebbe they'll learn something new to ignore.

[dark mavidson]

not a popular view, but are lower gas prices really good for us?

Don't know if this has been covered or not, only read the first page.

But speaking to current realities, yes, lower gas prices are good for us. Most public transportation systems in U.S. cities comprise largely of buses, which run on diesel fuel. Our shipping industry, which is heavily dependent on semi traffic, relies on diesel fuel. Other forms of shipping, which is obviously crucial to keep our country runnin, such as barges, airplanes, and trains, are all dependent in one way or another on oil, usually refined into diesel fuel.

Lower gas prices=lower shipping rates across the board=lower cost of goods.

It's more complicated than just bitching about putting $60 worth of gas in your car.


Another thing that is worthy of pointing out is that our military is almost entirely dependent on refined oil. Airplanes and tanks are scrap metal without fuel, and it takes quite a bit longer to send troops across the world on a sail ship. Not necessarily relevant to prices at your gas pump, but it's something worth considering.

Like I said, and I'm sure others too, it's a MUCH bigger problem than gas-guzzling SUV's and cars being seen as a crucial element to being an American. Hyrbid/alt cars are a start, but are certainly not a cure.

[Idris]

Got to call BS here. Show me one production automobile that gets over 70 mpg (us) and I'll start to take you seriously.

Volkswagen lupo

78mpg (usa)

[Idris]

But spare the holier-than-thou attitude please.

Notice I admit to driving a gas guzling beast!

[uglymoney]

Rail is inefficient and costly compared to long-haul trucking. If it wasn't the market would have corrected for this.

Rail is efficient, however for transporting large bulk items like coal, chemicals, commodities such as wheat etc. Not consumer goods, which the market demands fast delivery.

Rail is far more efficient and less labor intensive than long haul trucks, the problem is our railway system is jam packed with intermodal trailers and boxes. Freight shipped intermodally by rail has tripled since 1980 in the great USA, land of the once proud interstate highway system.

The problem is capacity at hubs and on the actually railways. This limits the amount of product the railways can offer which keeps prices for shipping intermodally propped up and time lines longer than they should be, which is the only thing keeping more trailers off of the road.

Check out this linky.

[backpack]

(ie: 4wd roads)

Real 4wd roads or maybe not super-well-maintained dirt roads? I may not go as fast in a fwd low-clearance car, but I have never once been turned back by a road in such poor condition I couldn't get through. Once it probably took me an extra hour in each direction to get to a trailhead where the road needed some serious work, oh well. I think if people tried driving mountain/dirt/rocky roads in a small car they'd realize that it isn't a big deal. Besides, do you head out to the backcountry.com to see how far in you can drive and not walk any further than needed, kind of like looking for front-row parking at the gym?

A lot of people tend to buy vehicles thinking of what they might theoretically use them for at some point during their lifetime, not what they're actually used for 99% of the time.

Yea, nothing new here. Sorry for being so unoriginal. I wish I had my old Mazda back that got 35-40mpg and liked snowy roads... but I guess I don't need a car at all 99% of the time now so it's smart not to have one.

Now back to conservation models in the amazon basin...

[Rontele]

Rail is far more efficient and less labor intensive than long haul trucks, the problem is our railway system is jam packed with intermodal trailers and boxes. Freight shipped intermodally by rail has tripled since 1980 in the great USA, land of the once proud interstate highway system.

The problem is capacity at hubs and on the actually railways. This limits the amount of product the railways can offer which keeps prices for shipping intermodally propped up and time lines longer than they should be, which is the only thing keeping more trailers off of the road.

Check out this linky.

I stand corrected! thanks, that is interesting. A revamped rail system would also help shuttling people between urban corridors such as Chicago-Detroit, etc.

[uglymoney]

But speaking to current realities, yes, lower gas prices are good for us.

Another thing that is worthy of pointing out is that our military is almost entirely dependent on refined oil. Airplanes and tanks are scrap metal without fuel, and it takes quite a bit longer to send troops across the world on a sail ship.

Wow. Just wow.

If we raised fuel taxes and gave less money to unstable regions of the world because of the lower consumption and lower demand which would lower prices and the quantity of money being exported to dangerous regimes we would have fewer airplanes and tanks spread out across the world trying to protect our oil interests.

The price of oil is not just in production and delivery. We pay tremendous environmental and military costs. Taxing gas would rightfully charge consumers for these costs while at the same time diminishing them.

[lucubrator]

Got to call BS here. Show me one production automobile that gets over 70 mpg (us) and I'll start to take you seriously.

That Honda Insight 2 seater gets 67 mpg (us) and can't carry your skis.

The VW Lupo gets 78mpg (us, diesel) but probably can't make it up the hill: Review.
It's not available in the us, and can't fit any long skis.

Here's a 1992 Honda Civic CX getting 65-83 mpg, on gasoline: