| Author |
Message |
    
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 09:39 am: | 
|
It just may be time for Americans to get their heads out of their cans (along with the domestic GM,Ford and Chrysler) and realize that the day of 10 passenger SUV's just may be coming to a close.
GMC Sierra - 15/20 mpg
GMC Canyon - 20/26 mpg
GMC Acadia - 16/24 mpg
GMC Yukon - 14/20 mpg
GMC Yukon Hybrid - 21/22 mpg
GMC Envoy - 14/20
Chevy Equinox - 17/24 mpg (GMC doesn't build an SUV on this mid-sized chassis)
2008 Saturn Vue Hybrid - 25/32 mpg (GMC doesn't build a hybrid on this mid-sized chassis)
Toyota Tacoma - 20/25 (worse than GMC Canyon)
Toyota Tundra - 15/19 (worse than GMC Sierra)
Toyota 4Runner - 15/19 mpg (same as GMC Envoy)
Toyota FJ - 16/20 mpg (GMC doesn't have comparable vehicle, not exactly stellar mileage though)
Toyota Highlander - 18/24 mpg (same as Chevy Equinox)
Toyota Land Cruiser - 13/18 mpg (worse than GMC Yukon)
Toyota Sequoia - 15/18 mpg (worse than GMC Yukon and Envoy)
Toyota Highlander Hybrid - 27/25 mpg (worse than Saturn Vue Hybrid)
A 9-passanger Yukon XL gets about the same mileage as an 8-passanger Sequoia (14/20 vs 15/18).
So what was that argument again? |
Not_purple_s2
| | Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 05:41 pm: |
|
If gasoline sold at $3/gal only garners "a few cents per gallon" of profit. Then how did the oil companies even get by ten years ago when gas was less than $1.50/gal?
Were they losing money then?
Has the cost of production doubled in the last few years?
I'm sure some of the increase could be taxation but not all of it.
Someone is making insane profits off of this increase of oil. If it isn't the oil companies that pump, process, and sell the products. Then it must be the individuals that own the mineral rights to oil deposits. Does anyone know what percentage of the known oil producing wells are owned privately or by "small" companies? I'm sure middle-eastern royal families would be the biggest conglomeration of privately owned oil. But what of domestic oil? |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 05:59 pm: |
|
Guys - the prices are driven by demand, period. China is BOOMING. They use a LOT of oil. You bid for your supply with dollars, that's how it works. It costs more because more people want and need it.
As for oil company profits, no one should be all that surprised. Based on what I use, I'd say that most drivers in the U.S. are spending about $2000/yr on gas... that doesn't inlcude oil that's used for heat, or making things like plastics and rubbers.
Any company that can sell every driver in this world $2000 worth of something a year is going to make a lot of money. |
Not_purple_s2
| | Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 07:12 pm: |
|
If the price is driven up by demand then that means the profits are up. If they're now only making pennies on the gallon what were they making before, pennies on the barrel?
Demand doesn't necessitate increase in price. There are only two reasons price goes up; 1. the seller wants to make more money. and/or 2. The item(s) is of finite supply and the seller wants to make the supply last. Even with a finite supply the price doesn't have to go up but it will run out quickly. By increasing price, consumption will decline. |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 07:22 pm: |
|
Demand doesn't necessitate increase in price. There are only two reasons price goes up; 1. the seller wants to make more money. and/or 2. The item(s) is of finite supply and the seller wants to make the supply last. Even with a finite supply the price doesn't have to go up but it will run out quickly. By increasing price, consumption will decline.
It doesn't necessitate it, but it does mean it's going to happen. If you have a product, the idea is to charge the max the market will bear for it. Oil is something we nned to survive, so we're willing to pay a lot for it, and when someone else across the planet wants it as much as we do, we have no choice but to buy our way to a larger share of it.
Price goes up because the seller CAN make more money.
Oil is in finite supply. The oil companies know we're running out, so yes - they're raising prices and cutting supply in order to gauruntee profits for as long as they can.
We all bitch and moan, but we'd all be doing the same thing if we had any business sense. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 07:42 pm: |
|
Purple,
Two things are driving the components of the price, cost for raw crude and processing.
You may have noticed the price per barrel of oil going up. That price per barrel is a raw material cost and is not part of the profit. As prices for raw crude increase, the overall price must increase to cover cost. The profit per gallon may never chance, but the price of the raw materials do requiring an increase in consumer price. Comparatively, the price of building materials has gone up considerably over the last 10-15 years. The average price for a house has increased because builders must pay more for building materials. Their profit per house stays the same, but the price increases to cover materials costs.
The second component of price is refining capacity. As the need for certain blends changes or as the quantity needed increases, the cost to refine that oil increases. As the refineries approach maximum capacity, the price per gallon refined increases. The best way to describe it is the decrease in fuel economy the faster you go. At some point wind resistance decreases your efficiency.
Add to that the fact that finding and extracting the oil becomes harder and more expensive with each passing day, and you can see that will become more and more difficult to make a profit. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 08:10 pm: |
|
"...they're raising prices and cutting supply in order to gauruntee profits for as long as they can."
I disagree with that. Read "The Prize", a history of oil.
The idea is that everyone is essentially sucking on the same pool. They all want to make as much $$ as possible before it runs out.
Some think that the reluctance to use domestic sources of petroleum is a long range plan to keep a reserve that we will still have when the spigot dries up in the middle east. I wish we had people running things that took that intelligent a long view.
The oil company exec's either are taking the bonus's & retiring or putting $$ in future sources to keep the company going.
Didn't J.Carter's admin invest a large bundle of our money into WW2 coal conversion tech? Yep. What happened? It was only profitable if oil was ( I could be off, it's been a while ) about $40 a bbl. The OPEC countries then cranked up production to freeze that tech out.
Why doesn't someone make a coal to gasoline plant? Why have no refineries been built since Carter?
Because it's not worth it to any company to stick that big a chunk of money, into something that won't pay off for that long, and be such a pain to get past the ecofreaks. ( because we ALL just love to have a refinery, nuclear plant, or hog rendering operation across the street. Ask Ted Kennedy how much he supports wind power. Anywhere but his house. ) |
4cammer
| | Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 11:44 pm: |
|
"A 9-passanger Yukon XL gets about the same mileage as an 8-passanger Sequoia (14/20 vs 15/18).
So what was that argument again?"
Actually my intention of that above statement was that the so-called big 3 might want to take some of their R&D $$$ from the truck coffers and develop a quality small fuel efficient car. |
Bearly
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 12:50 am: |
|
I don't know if you guys and girls thought of this, but I have a motorcycle. It's good on gas. Get one!
I'm trying to be funny, was that funny? |
Court
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 05:31 am: |
|
While you're doing this research, let me know how a Ford F-150 SuperCab fares . . . I just realized I have never checked the mileage!
Smart Cars and Segue are beginning to haunt New York City . . . be worth the change? |
Brumbear
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 08:44 am: |
|
I got everything I need and some of what I want so who cares about big $$ co. We can change big $$$ co any time we want just don't buy their products. Life is to short |
Bcordb3
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 09:03 am: |
|
Ford F-150 SuperCab fares .
I have one those with the 5.4 Triton. I get around 16.3 city driving and around 18.5 highway. I haven't done any long trip with it, I would suspect that it would do better. |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 09:30 am: |
|
Court - the Ford website is probably the most shy I've ever seen in regards to gas mileage..I wish I could help.
Actually my intention of that above statement was that the so-called big 3 might want to take some of their R&D $$$ from the truck coffers and develop a quality small fuel efficient car.
Fair enough, but I think their heads are in the right places for the most part.
Think of this way - they can take a small car that already gets good mileage and try to get it to do better, or take a truck that gets bad mileage and get it to do good. 6 one, half dozen the other.
Just for kicks, I have a supercharged Chevy Cobalt SS. My car is rated at 29mpg highway. I have never gotten less than 32 on a trip, and once averaged 37.7mpg over 600 miles.
A 420hp 6.3 liter Corvette gets 26mpg. A 505hp 7.0 liter version gets 24mpg. A 126hp Corolla gets 37mpg.
430hp Vette = 16.5 hp per mpg
505hp Vette = 21 hp per mpg
126hp Corolla = 3.4 hp per mpg
Yeah, the Corolla does better in terms of ultimate mpg numbers, but how much fun can you have in a Corolla with the engine running (read, "not in the backseat witha girl")?
Not trying to blow holes in your argument, I just think things are being done in different places. Toyota has the upper hand on hybrids (slightly), and companies like GM and Chrylser have Displacement On Demand (or similar technologies). I'm all for vehicles that get exceptional mileage, but I'm unwilling to sacrafice the performance I crave for it.
Personal example - I was pretty hot for a Honda VFR800, until I found out it made similar power to my Buell and got about 20mpg less. That's too big of a hit for me. |
Road_thing
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 11:09 am: |
|
Has the cost of production doubled in the last few years?
Yes.
Prices of oil field services, especially drilling services, rise and fall with the price of crude.
Then how did the oil companies even get by ten years ago when gas was less than $1.50/gal? Were they losing money then?
The size of the prospective reservoir that's left to drill in the US has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years. The only way anybody drills for $100 worth of oil is if it costs him less than $100 to do it. Since world demand has pushed oil prices to their current high levels, domestic E&P companies like the ones I've worked for are pursuing prospects that we wouldn't have considered 20 years ago.
In addition to "The Prize" I suggest reading "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts and "Twilight in the Desert" by Matt Simmons.
rt |
Rainman
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 12:16 pm: |
|
How much fun can you have in a Corolla with the engine running? With a well-stocked iPod, an iced-down six-pack, some automatic weapons and a little cruising around, a whole lot of fun.
Um, don't ask how I know that. |
Froggy
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Court, most of the 2008 F150's are rated for 13 city/17 highway.
"Actually my intention of that above statement was that the so-called big 3 might want to take some of their R&D $$$ from the truck coffers and develop a quality small fuel efficient car."
Actually they have. The 2008 Chevy Malibu blows away the Honda Accord in all comparisons. The 2008 Cadillac CTS won Motor trend’s car of the year award.
Just for kicks, my 2002 Chevy Monte Carlo with a 185hp 3.4L V6 gets about 33-34mpg, and once got 39mpg on an all highway tank. |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 12:47 pm: |
|
How much fun can you have in a Corolla with the engine running? With a well-stocked iPod, an iced-down six-pack, some automatic weapons and a little cruising around, a whole lot of fun.
Okay, I guess there's really no arguing with that...but...how much MORE fun would you have doing that in a Vette!?!?!? |
Cereal
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 01:16 pm: |
|
It's harder to shoot from a vette due to the position of the seats. |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 01:28 pm: |
|
It's harder to shoot from a vette due to the position of the seats.
You're forgetting that they have a removable roof - you don't have sit down and shoot. |
Buellerandy
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 04:56 pm: |
|
plasma cutter anyone? |
Eengler2
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 05:23 pm: |
|
Don't know if it was mentioned, yet...
Part of the reason for the high Milk price is because of government intervention artificially creating a product need (ethanol) that has driven up the price of corn. Cows eat corn products. Higher feed cost=Higher milk cost and Higher meat cost.
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
"David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people."
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace".
This is what happens when the free market doesn't determine pricing and products.
Ethanol also does not make sense to the consumer. E85 requires 30% more fuel to be delivered to the motor for it to operate properly (that's why you have to have a E85 rated vehicle or have you ECU calibrated), but E85 does not cost 30% less (at least in Indiana). So you end up pay more for gas, milk, and meat.
If we want lower gas/oil prices for the short term, we need to drill more. But the environmentalists of course reject that. However the Clinton camp has recently suggested tapping into our country's oil reserve.  (sarcasm)Great idea!(sarcasm) That sounds like a great way to end our dependence on foreign oil. Using our rainy day fund that is there to keep our economy from collapsing in case of crisis does not seem like it would be in the best interest of National Security to me. Oh well
/End rant  |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 06:52 pm: |
|
I just don't get why you can't buy fuel efficient, small, common-rail turbo-diesels there, could it be because you'd use a great deal less fuel & your government, & oil companies, would consequently gain a great deal less revenue?
Or are your domestic Automobile manufacturers incapable of making them, & scared of the competition?
This isn't a pop at you so don't take it as such, these vehicles exist & are sold in virtually every market in the world except the North American one.
Why is this? I don't get it!  |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 07:07 pm: |
|
Mr Grumpy -
As I understand it, diesels in general have a hard time passing our strcit emissions limitations, which just recently got hiked. That's why VW (among others) had to take a hiatus from their diesels for the 2007 model year here (there was some big change to the forumla of the fuel or something, to get them to burn cleaner). I think thins change will invite more and come and compete.
Diesels get better mileage, but also burn dirtier - something North America hasn't been willing to compromise on, as I understand it. |
Iamike
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 10:59 pm: |
|
This is the point that I was making - I don't have a problem with people using big vehicles, the only problem is that when we waste gas by using them all the time Big Government is going to come along and take them away from all of us. Even the ones that need them. If you listen to the Dems they are open about it.
I just wish that people would try a little harder to save gas than waste it. See, I'm a true conservative. Not a hippocrite like the other party. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 11:18 pm: |
|
Fair position Mike. |
Brumbear
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 07:40 am: |
|
would wasting gas be a wide open throttle sorry I am guilty and will not relinquish my stance I want my MTV |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 12:45 am: |
|
The 2008 VW TDI's are 50 state legal. THe 06's were 45 state legal. VW went back to common rail technology since inprovements in diesel fuel injectors made that method more attractive. The 08 is 100 cc's larger than the 06, makes 33% more power, and is more fuel efficient. I get 42/45 in my 06. Thinking about trading up. The 08's have 6 speed manual trannys |
|
