Tom, Ray and your car's MPG

Maintenance/Repairs
141

Marketplace vs. government?

In their pure forms, both are deadly. The worst features of both have also been combined in some places, with similar results on the general population. (Plus whose “National Interest” are we talking about - yours, or mine? :wink:

It’s not really a choice - we need to try to use the best features of both, while trying to avoid their biggest dangers. Neither is Evil incarnate. Neither is The Answer.

One of the most effective (but least popular) powers a government has is its ability to raise or lower taxes. Raising US fuel taxes over a few years to achieve European fuel prices ($5-$7 a gallon), or more, would certainly lower oil consumption and cut the trade deficit. It would also truly put “market forces” to work.

In addition, reducing consumption would keep large amounts of money out of the pockets of folks who wish us no good (Iran, Venezuela’s Chavez, Russia, the list goes on and on…). Maybe, bias the tax to favor fuels that are generally easier and more efficient to refine, as well as burn (i.e. diesel fuel - more “bang for the barrel”). Don’t do what we did in the 1970’s with unleaded gas (by making leaded gas cheaper, we actually provided an incentive to poison the catalytic converter, after having forced the consumer to spend $500 more on the car - obstensively to reduce air pollution)

Apply the fuel tax increase directly toward defense spending (the direct costs of securing the energy supply, completely neglected by the current “market” - it’s subsidized out of general tax revenues, among other resources). Call it the National Defense and Patriotism Support Act (who couldn’t wave a flag at that?)

Maybe add a little for alternative fuels? Probably unnecessary at $7-$10/gallon - alternatives would be self-financing, and the market would probably find the best ones. (And, some of the “alternative fuel” subsidies we have would look even stupider than they do now). If necessary, give tax rebates for the poorer folks who really need large vehicles (but it’s a slippery slope - look at the billions in tax and price subsidies AgroMegaBusiness gets in the name of helping the “family farmer”). Improved public transport might not even need a subsidy (Maybe, with its one-person-per-rush-hour-Lexus population feeling the pinch, the richest county in the richest country in the world could even find the money in its own pockets to extend the Washington Metro system 15 miles out toward Washington Dulles Airport, after having failed since 1965 to get it subsidized by the rest of the country)

But, gas tax increases are political suicide - especially for the vast new legions of voting SUV drivers living 50 miles from where they work. To be fair, any broad based taxes are killers - even if taxes are actually lowered elsewhere (or don’t go up as much as they would have, to pay for past spending binges). People focus on the increase - especially if it’s obvious.

Increased CAFEs are politically safer, but less effective (smoke and mirrors to get the averages up, less incentive for maintained efficiency - who cares if your MPG goes down, if it doesn’t really hit your pocket?) and less efficient (bureaucracy trying to bully the market, political calculations instead of real mileage calculations). But, if anything is done, CAFEs it will probably be.

Or, we can continue to do nothing, and go along for the ride (down the long tube to Life in the 3rd World). Yeah! - That’s MUCH easier… (Worked well in the 90’s, didn’t it? Aren’t we all better off now?)

142

I must disagree:

1)Why should we raise taxes to reduce consumption? The most effected will be the poor since they will be less likely to be able to pay for the increase cost of gas or the increased cost of goods that will accompany it. We have all the oil we need for the near future (while we move towards the next generation of fuels ie. hydrogen, water, etc.)if the government would simply permit us to drill where we have oil! The site in the ANWR is only 3 sq. mi. in a reserve of 30,000 sq. Mi. That’s 3 Sq. mi. in an area the size of South Carolina! So there is no reason to take drastic measures to reduce consumption.

  1. An increase in fuel tax gives a lot more money to the government to waste. They can’t even tell us what’s being done with the gas taxes that are being raised now! That’s the money that was supposed to be used to keep the bridges from falling but they don’t even know what they did with it!

3)If the government will permit more drilling we will be less dependent on foreign oil hence there will be no need to “beat up other people on the planet to maintain elements of our absurd standard of living” as tinkertoc put it. By the way, if the Iraq war is about oil, why haven’t we received any yet? All the money spent on the Iraq war to date could purchase ALL the oil recently discovered in the Tupi, Brazil site that is transforming Brazil into a major oil export country. Anyone that believes that this war is about the U.S. getting oil has such a low opinion of our leaders that we’re wasting our time discussing such trivial matters as fuel consumption.

4)since government red tape is what has caused the building of a new refinery to take ten years then have a government/private sector team build it, having the govt. cut the tape and the private build it right. This would alow investors to see a return on their money sooner and keep the supply of fuel from being bottlenecked at the refinery.

5)As for docnick’s views on gas guzzler taxes, I cannot comfortably fit my family in one of those wind-up cars from Korea, Japan, or even the full size VWs. My family vehicle is a 12 passenger F-150. If I could fit the family into 2 small cars we would use more gas than driving the van. Plus on one hand your saying that the demand for better gas mileage cars (the marketplace) will not effect manufacturers but that “Joe six pack’s”, as Craig58 refers to anyone who wants to keep gas prices low, desire to own a gas hog keeps the manufacturers building what the people want. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! Either the demand of the people effects the manufacturer or it doesn’t.

6)Anyone who thinks that the demand of the people for better MPG cars wont effect manufacturers does not know history. Chrysler would have gone out of business if Jimmy Carter, creator of one of the worse economies America had ever seen, didn’t bail them out. Why? Because they continued to build gas hogs (by the way, these cars met the CAFE laws of the day) when the demand was for better MPG cars. And guess what happened? Chrysler introduced the best MPG cars of the Big 3! Not because of CAFE but because of DEMAND!!!

7)As for those concerned about the carbon footprint of cars, you’d better dump your Prius! The hybrid cars have the largest carbon footprint of all cars built! Ranked in the top 10 for lowest carbon footprint from manufacture to demise (as PJCHRIS was talking about) is the HUMMER! Also note that cars made to American standards are the least polluting cars in the world but the devices used to reduce emissions also reduce MPG!

8)How many of you actually drive you vehicles at the speed that the EPA tests them for mileage - 55 MPH? I’m willing to bet not one! But when I ran my own business and did on the road test drives, every car got it’s best efficiency at 55 MPH. As a matter of FACT I could consistently get better mileage than the EPA estimates by simply GENTLY driving at 55 on the highway. Yet no one is concerned enough to reduce their speed to save gas let alone save their life!

Consider yourself a hypocrite if you are griping about MPG and consistently drive faster than 55 MPH!

143

If I understand your position, you think there is no need to reduce consumption. OK, that position is consistent with keeping fuel prices low. However, I don’t think you will find many folks in either the government of oil business that want both of those things to happen together. Even those folks in government who want to open up additional U.S. reserves are not short sighted enough to want to see them rapidly depleted. The oil companies simply want to sell the maximum product at the maximum price, just like any business. I think you and “joe six-pack” are by yourselves on this one. Fortunately for the rest of us, prices will continue to rise (with or without government intervention) and that will result in some reduction in consumption. Eventually, the rest of the world will reach U.S. per capita consumption rates and prices will increase significantly enough to make a real difference. The U.S. can either lead or follow, in the end it won’t really matter.

144

" - The market DOES dictate what is sold. "

True, but the market does limit what is available for sale. If only higher mileage vehicles are available, then that is what will sell. There may be a reduction in sales as people make other choices (mass-transit?) However I do believe that if more efficient, higher mileage vehicles are available they will sell. If there is a demand for 6 passenger safe cars that meet the minimum mileage standards, the manufacturers will find a way to produce them.

145

Mike, spacious vehicles do NOT need to be gas guzzlers. My wife and I were in Thailand a while back and the Bankok tourist bureau transports people in the neatest vehicles; one day we had a Toyota diesel (4cyl)minibus, seating 10-12 passegers (depending on their size) and the next day a Mercedes minibus,same size, also with a diesel and a stick shift. Both of these vehicles would get TWICE the fuel mileage of your F150, and were more comfortable. Their overall size was about the same as a Suburban or Ford Expedition, all without the weight and the 250HP engines! Renault in France builds a similar vehicle, called the Espace (means “space”), and it also has a 4cyl turbo diesel, and is very easy on fuel. I grew up in a family of 10, and wished we had had access to such vehicles, since we ended up with 2 cars, a Chev and a Plymouth. Mercedes will be selling their diesel minibus shortly in the US as an airport or hotel shuttle vehicle; look out to buy a used one at some time in the future.

146

No Craig, my position is that something as drastic as doubling or tripling the price of gas is not required. An increase like that would destroy the nations economy. A $5/gal tax increase (aprox. 140 Billion gal of gasoline consumed in the US per year, X $5.00 = $700,000,000,000 per year)based on an average per capita gasoline consumption in the U.S.A. gives you a tax increase of $232o/year for every man woman and child in the U.S.A. + the massive additional cost it will cause in consumer goods. the average family of 5 will see an $11,600/year INCREASE in output for gas and at least a 50% average increase in consumer goods. While these numbers are based on averages, you can see how devastating such a tax will be.

By the way Craig, do you drive over 55 MPH?

147

Thanks Doc, but those vehicles will not pass American Emissions or safety crash tests. Even European built Mercedes not built for American sale require a special paperwork to be sold in America because of the lower crash standards. My E-150 with a 5.4 liter engine has gotten me as good as 27 MPG on the highway. Not bad for a guzzler!

148

“By the way Craig, do you drive over 55 MPH?”

… Every chance I get, fuel is very cheap.

Now I’m confused, do you think U.S. oil consumption should be reduced or not?

Assuming you numbers are correct, an $2,300 per capita increase in fuel cost would probably put dent in consumption. I drive about 40,000 miles per year, so the $5 increase would cost me about $8000. That might cause me to change my driving habits, a $4000 increase ($2.50 price increase) would probably have very little effect on my driving. I assume a tax of this type would have to include credits for low income people; you do want folks to be able to get to work, just not in a hummer.

You can’t claim a 50% increase in the cost of consumer goods if you have already included the impact in your “per capita” cost calculation. Your $2,300 estimate would include the total impact. Either way, a $2300 per capita “tax” phased in over about 5 years would hardly be “devastating,” but it might get a few SUVs off the road. We are talking about americans who don’t think twice about $1.50 bottled water and $4.00 starbucks coffee, do you really think you are going to get their attention with a $.50/gallon price increase.

Increasing the price by $1/gallon every new-years day for the next 5 years might get them to put down their cafe mocha and rethink their vehicle choices. They might even think about getting on a bus or train occasionally. Or they might trade in their 15 mpg vehicle $40,000 SUV and buy a 30 mpg $25,000 car and break even on the deal. If shipping goods gets more expensive, maybe folks will have more incentive to buy locally produced products. I’m not saying it would be painless, and I don’t know if $5 is the correct number, but I do know that a significant price increase in the only effective way to reduce consumption. Of course, it won’t happen; we will continue to do nothing for a few more decades.

149

Boy are you confused and missinformed.

If the government will permit more drilling we will be less dependent on foreign oil hence there will be no need to “beat up other people on the planet to maintain elements of our absurd standard of living” as tinkertoc put it.

The Government IS allowing them to drill. The oil companies are choosing NOT to because it’s far cheaper to import the oil then to drill here.

By the way, if the Iraq war is about oil, why haven’t we received any yet?

Because it was a COMPLETE BLUNDER on the way the war is run. The oil lines in Iraq are NOT secure and thus not shipping any oil out in great quantities.

creator of one of the worse economies America had ever seen,

The worse in my lifetime is Bush Sr…And now Bush Jr.

Chrysler introduced the best MPG cars of the Big 3! Not because of CAFE but because of DEMAND!!!

First off the Cafe numbers back then were almost a joke. Second…Chrysler was DESPORATE. They were about to go under and needed something to set them apart from the rest of the field. Third…Even with those vehicles Chrysler BARELY met their Cafe numbers. And it wasn’t those cars they brought Chryco out of bankrupt. It was the MiniVan that set Chryco apart from everyone else.

Also note that cars made to American standards are the least polluting cars in the world but the devices used to reduce emissions also reduce MPG

And you engineer a way around the reduced MPG problem…which was done when the first EPA standards were introduced. It’s no secret. That’s why cars today that weigh what cars did 30 years ago…get FAR BETTER gas mileage…are SAFE…and produce less then 1/10th the amount of polution cars 30 years ago did.

Why should we raise taxes to reduce consumption? The most effected will be the poor since they will be less likely to be able to pay for the increase cost of gas or the increased cost of goods that will accompany it.

I agree 100%.

We have all the oil we need for the near future (while we move towards the next generation of fuels ie. hydrogen, water, etc.)if the government would simply permit us to drill where we have oil! The site in the ANWR is only 3 sq. mi. in a reserve of 30,000 sq. Mi. That’s 3 Sq. mi. in an area the size of South Carolina! So there is no reason to take drastic measures to reduce consumption.

And that is the short sightedness that got us in this mess. The future is NOT that far away. My kids will be around to see it. Plus your figures I gurantee you are NOT taking into the FACT that China and India will be using 5-10 times the amount of oil we use right not within the next 20 years. Reserves will be GONE long before then. Also you mentioned Hydrogen…Guess where the best place to get hydrogen from is??? OIL!

150

You should consider that when you point a finger at someone else, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself. I don’t think anyone here claims to be perfect. So your accusations of hypocrisy fall flat. You don’t have to be perfect to make a difference. Besides, my Honda Civic’s most efficient speed is at about 65 MPH. At 55 MPH my car is still in 4th gear. If your vehicle’s most efficient speed is 55 MPH, you should consider buying a car that was made after 1980.

Jimmy Carter was a “creator” or one of the worst economies America has even seen? Excuse me, but to blame any President for the economy is folly. Congress controls fiscal policy. The Fed controls monetary policy. The President really has very little influence on the economy, although the American public has no problem blaming the President when an inherently cyclical economy takes its natural course.

Drilling in ANWAR wouldn’t even make a mere dent in our energy problems.

Regarding the “red tape” involved in building new refineries, do you know what effect the local refineries have on air quality in Houston, Texas? Have you ever tried to raise a family in a city where there are oil refineries? Asthma is alarmingly higher in those areas. If we didn’t regulate refineries, they would poison the air your children breathe.

151

The government only permits drilling in about 12% of the available oil fields - and WE ARE drilling there!

As for the worse economies in your lifetime, your bias is obviously effecting your memory.

And as for short sightedness you didn’t read what I wrote. I fully expect the replacement for gasoline to be up and running within 10 years.

152

No Craig, the $2300 estimate is ONLY the per capita cost increase on Gasoline purchases. When goods are shipped from manufacturer to middle man there will be an increase in the cost to the manufacturer to ship it so he will have to increase the cost of the product shipped. The middle man will then have to increase his price due to the manufacturers price increase. Then the middle man ships his item, with the increased price to a store. But the middle man has to pay for the shipping there and the shipping is going to cost him more. So he will increase his price to not only make up for the increase by the manufacturer but also increase it for the extra price he has to pay for shipping. Then when the store that purchases it gets it to it’s warehouse, they have to deliver it to the local stores which will cost more due to fuel. So now the store has to up it’s price to cover the increase by the manufacturer, the middleman and now to deliver it to the local outlets. And don’t forget that their in it for profit so they will add a percentage to all of those costs.

Every chance you get? Come on Craig, how serious are you?

153

“And as for short sightedness you didn’t read what I wrote. I fully expect the replacement for gasoline to be up and running within 10 years.”

You must be joking, there is nothing even remotely on the horizon that will replace gasoline/diesel for several decades. Don’t believe everything that’s put into a grant application (or political speech). IMHO, 50 years is probably optimistic to replace a significant portion of the gasoline/diesel powered transportation. The currently available technologies have been around for at least 30 years (electric, fuel cells, hydrogen, etc.) and they are not significantly more attractive now than they were then; and they certainly are not cost effective at current fuel prices. If you don’t want to pay $5/gallon for gasoline, you certainly won’t want to pay for any of the alternatives. Formulating energy policy based on the hope of emerging technologies is foolish, at best.

154

Well Jeremy, I guess that means you don’t drive 55. I’ll toss another one out as well. How many out there even drive the speed limit or less? IF YOU ARE GOING TO SUGGEST ANY IMPOSITION ON ANOTHER FOR IMPROVED MPG WITHOUT DOING WITHIN REASON WHAT YOU CAN TO REDUCE YOUR OWN CONSUMPTION,YOU’RE A HYPOCRITE! I have no fingers pointing at me, I can back up everything I’ve said.

Oh, and the estimated amount of oil in ANWR is more than twice that found in Tupi, Brazil. The oil in the Gulf of Mexico is 5 times that in ANWR and, if we can figure out a way t get to it, the oil in Colorado is greater than the 1.2 TRILLION barrels that Saudi Arabia is reported to have.

As for Carter, you’re only part right. A president presents his ideas and budget plans to Congress and they vote on doing it, adjusting it or dumping it - and Carter had a packed house of libs in congress to support him. That’s why what happened in 1980-1988 was call “Reaganomics” - it was that presidents economic ideas adjusted by congress.

In my business I did test drives on GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Honda & Toyota. All showing best fuel economy at around 55 MPH. I suppose your driving a “Miracle Honda”. Got any “bridges for sale”? How does it feel to have someone question your integrity?

Enough of that though. Between you and MikeInNH I find myself challenged to look further into some of my ideas. I hope y’all will consider looking at some of what I have presented as well. I’d be more than happy to provide my past research on the different additives out there and which ones I found to work and which didn’t. I’m also open to any questions about what I’ve written about. I’m not some joker who’s just repeating a line I heard on some radio show. I know of what I speak.
Cheers!!!

155

I drive over 55 every chance I get, significantly over 55. I try not to be any more serious than absolutely necessary; you’re being serious enough for both of us. You know, there are some very tasty decaffeinated brands on the market these days.

You may want to rethink your calculation, but I agree that increasing fuel prices too quickly could be inflationary. The trick is to do it at an appropriate rate to prevent rapid increasing of prices (and especially wages, which is more inflationary) while keeping a modest growth rate. At least the fed won’t have to keep playing with the prime rate to “slow down” the economy. As I said, it’s not going to happen (even though it should) due to a serious lack of “political will.”

156

I see your point about energy policy based on a hope. But Ford claims that they’ll have a H2 car on the market within 5 years! And give 3-5 years to get the bugs out (like they did with the hybrids) and there’s your 10 years! Not to mention none of the other auto makers wanting to be left behind spurring on innovation.

Seriously now Craig, the road tests I did on cars, on average, showed the best mpg were: 1st:55, 2nd: 50 & 60 about the same 3rd: 45&65 about the same, 4th: 40 5th:70 That being the case, unless your driving a Lotus that gets it’s peak mpg at around 85 mpg, are you willing to drive at 55 MPH to reduce the need for foreign oil and have all those people honk at you for not driving at least 65 in a 55, or are you not really THAT serious about the whole thing?

157

I’m not that serious, I drive a 25 year old, 4000 pound diesel car that gets about 25 mpg at 80 mph (which I will continue to drive regardless of fuel price), I’m talking about public policy not my individual preferences.

A H2 car will accomplish nothing to reduce overall energy consumption, the hydrogen “fuel” is either extracted from oil/gas or separated from water using more energy than can be recovered in the vehicle. The H2 is simply acting as a battery to store chemical energy that was converted elsewhere. The proponents of H2 fuel are claiming it is “green” based on additional renewable electrical generation being used to “create” the fuel. In reality, only a few percent of electrical generation in the U.S. is renewable, and that figure is unlikely to increase anytime soon. If we want to do that, me might as well just build more renewable electrical capacity and replace oil heat with electric heat in the northeast. That change would involve a lot less infrastructure than going to H2 vehicles.

158

AHH! that must me a Mercedes!

What about the scientist in Pennsylvania that has found that using a certain radio frequency actually weakens bonds holding together the constituents of salt water – sodium chloride, hydrogen and oxygen – and releases the hydrogen! This has been confirmed by a Penn State University chemist!!!

159

Unless the first and second laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, the total energy required for this process will still exceed the energy that is extracted when the H2 and O2 are combined in a fuel cell; otherwise these folks have just invented a perpetual motion machine and we can all stop worrying about energy (unlikely). In effect, they are talking about designing a more efficient battery, not a new source of energy.

A more efficient H2/fuel cell process may be very useful, but it’s not a silver bullet to replace fossil fuel. The biggest advantage of a H2 process is it allows the emissions to be moved from the vehicle to a stationary facility where they are easier to mitigate. The challenge would be to establish a wide enough infrastructure of refueling stations to make the technology marketable. Remember that the current gasoline/diesel system has developed over about 100 years, it won’t be replaced overnight.

I have a '82 300D and a '83 240D.

160

We have too much government now, Let the market decide. Where came I get one of those Electric Smart Cars?

My last three comuter cars have all been Hondas; a 1980 about 35-40 MPG, a 1989 CRX 50-55 MPG a few tanks up to 60 MPG, and now a 2001 Civic getting about 40 MPG. We have the technology now!! Bring back the CRX HF

Art