Gas Price

[ctenidae]

Out of curiosity, those who want $5 gas to force the advancement of fuel efficiency and public transportation; what kinds of cars do you own in your household? I know rivercoil and snoseek drive very fuel efficient vehicles. Do you drive one of the numerous 35mpg + car models available today? I certainly hope you walk the talk. Otherwise it's a do as I say, not as I do argument.

The cars we drive have, according to their computers, gotten about 22 mpg since we've started driving them, one for almost 3 years, the other for a little over 2. One is the only 6-speed of its type available, and the other is one of the few.

I disagree with the "do as I say" characterization. Higher prices drives innovation, to be sure, but I don't think efficiency is a moral requirement. It should certianly be a viable option, though. No one (sane) drives a gas guzzler just because t's a gas guzzler. Given the opportunity to drive a more efficient vehicle that delivers the same things as a less efficient vehicle, no rational person would choose the less efficient version. Higher gas prices means the price differential between an efficient version and an innefficient version narrows, providing scale for the development and production of the efficient version. A rational consumer won't buy the gas Accord if the Hybrid gives the same features and is the same price.

If there were a more fuel efficient option for my wife's 6-speed Cayenne that delivers the driving enjoyment, luxury, looks, handling, seating, handling, reliability, handling, and handling that we get from the Porsche, and it were comparably priced, I'd be all over it like Greenpeace on a whaling vessel. Same for my C300- if there were a hybrid or EV available that delivered the same features as my car for the price, I'd take it. Sadly, looks like my options for doing that even in a gas engine are getting narrower and narrower (MB has dropped the 6-speed for 2012, the bastards).

 

[SkiFanE]

If you really think about it all of this talk about fuel efficiency is kind of ridiculous on a ski forum isn't it? Can you think of another business that uses such a large amount of energy? yes there are many but Downhill Skiing isn't and never will be a "green" sport.

I was riding on a lift this winter and the guy next to me said "talk about carbon footprint, this is all carbon" I have to agree. Fuel to get to the mountain, massive amounts of diesel or electricity made from burning fossil fuels and/or nuclear power to run the lifts and lodges.

then there are the second homeowners like many of us that have to keep two homes warm all winter. It's it enough to make anyone feel guilty? The fact is we are using more energy than any other country in the world and many of us skiers are using more than the average American. We are the worst of the worst.
I've even had friends that are living an extremely green life call me out on the second home. I guess I justified it by saying that I purchased a used home and didn't use resources to build a new one :smile:

I'm not going to sell my car and get another one that gets 5mpg more. Purchasing a brand new car would be far less "green" than keeping my old car going. The resources needed to make a new car are also huge, nobody thinks about that.

My two homes have about 3200 sq ft combined. That's smaller than many people's one home. So I have 0 guilt. Heck...near me some people's foyers are 1500sq feet!

 

[deadheadskier]

We'll have to agree to disagree cten. I don't think it's right for someone who's driving inefficient Porche's and Mercedez to be rooting for $5 gas for two reasons.

A. You're not walking the talk with you vehicle choices. You want a more fuel efficient American driving fleet? Well go out and buy a 40mpg car, there are plenty of them.

B. Someone that has the disposable income to drive such cars really doesn't feel the impact of $5 gas much at all. I would say the same is true of someone who owns two homes. You say you're willing to sacrifice and accept $5 gas for future innovation. Would that still be the case if you had to pay $20 a gallon to drive your car and heat your home? Because effectively that's what the average working American or a senior citizen on a fixed income suffers by paying $5.

 

[tjf67]

We thought the same It's actually a common practice with small mortgages. Many banks do it to cover their overhead costs (takes the bank the same amount of work to initiate a 100K loan as a 300K loan) as well as making the loan more profitable for them.

The sticking it in our ass part was that by the time we were informed of this .5% adjustment, we were way to far along in the process to stop and hunt for another loan.

Not true. somebody got you. If you ever see the broker out in a bar you should smack them in the head.

 

[campgottagopee]

We thought the same It's actually a common practice with small mortgages. Many banks do it to cover their overhead costs (takes the bank the same amount of work to initiate a 100K loan as a 300K loan) as well as making the loan more profitable for them.

The sticking it in our ass part was that by the time we were informed of this .5% adjustment, we were way to far along in the process to stop and hunt for another loan.

Not true. somebody got you. If you ever see the broker out in a bar you should smack them in the head.

I had similar situation happen to me @ a closing. Started to walk out....you'd be amazed how fast paperwork can be changed.

 

[deadheadskier]

Not true. somebody got you. If you ever see the broker out in a bar you should smack them in the head.

Well, my wife works for a Credit Union and they've done it. My father worked for Bank of Boston for 35 years as a loan officer. He said it was fairly common practice as well.

Ultimately, my mortgage is very small, so I don't sweat the rate much. I was more just driving home the point that others were making that banks don't encourage responsible borrowing. They do just the opposite.

but, my broker indeed was a swarmy prick, so I may smack him if I see him out

 

[ctenidae]

DHS, you and I see eye to eye quite often, so please do take all this with the respect with which it is intended.

I'm simply not willing to give up certain aspects of my driving enjoyment for what in the end would be a negligible impact. I think it makes a lot more sense for the average driver, which by definition is the majority, to have affordable efficient alternatives, as that is where the greatest impact can be had. As I said, if what I wanted were available in a more efficient model, I'd get it. IF the consumers who purchase the majority of the vehicles in this country could fulfill their needs through a more efficient vehicle, they would, too.

To be perfectly honest, the place the innovation needs to occur more than anywhere else is in semi trailers. That would have the greatest across the board effect, both on petroleum useage and by reducing the cost of goods in the US, since transport costs would come down.

I also disagree with the moral imperitive you seem to attach to the discussion. Whether fuel efficiency, reducing reliance on foreign oil, improving energy security (whatever that means), or reducing CO2 emmisions is a good thing that should be pursued is a good thing is not the question here. If those things are your goal, I see 2 ways to accomplish it- either massive government funded R&D, or market forces to drive profitable innovation. Since no one seems to like the idea of government funding (for reasons I find to be quite silly), $5 gas is the only viable economic trigger. Of course, people don't like that either.

So, rather than moral edicts, perhaps a suggestion as to how more efficient vehicles can be developed is more useful.

For the record, I agree that all of those things I listed are worthy goals. However, I completely disgree that the problem is that people do drive Hummers. The problem is that people can't drive more efficient vehicles. $5 gas is not a great thing for people's wallets- that's a given. But if gas costing $5 makes a vehicle that uses less gas cost competitive, then that, economically, is a good thing.

 

[hammer]

I had similar situation happen to me @ a closing. Started to walk out....you'd be amazed how fast paperwork can be changed.

Sounds like the same tactic that people should use if numbers change at a car dealership...:wink:

 

[campgottagopee]

Sounds like the same tactic that people should use if numbers change at a car dealership...:wink:

Couldn't agree more wth you

 

[hammer]

Couldn't agree more wth you

As much as car salespeople are maligned I think that mortgage brokers and closing attorneys can be worse...and more expensive.

 

[mondeo]

I, personally, hate the focus on auto efficiency. My car gets about 22 mpg. But my summer fuel consumption is much lower than most Prius owners, as I live 5 miles from work and ride my bike in about 20% of the time. Winter is another issue, one that I'm going to have to figure out for next year. I'd carpool, but hate giving up the independence once I'm at kton to do stuff with different groups of friends.

 

[ctenidae]

As much as car salespeople are maligned I think that mortgage brokers and closing attorneys can be worse...and more expensive.

And ultimately less useful.

/my brother is a closing attorney, and he agrees on all points

 

[tjf67]

And ultimately less useful.

/my brother is a closing attorney, and he agrees on all points

Does he also underwrite title insurance? That were the big bucks are made.

 

[ctenidae]

Does he also underwrite title insurance? That were the big bucks are made.

Not directly, but he does manage to pull a broker's commission on occasion.

 

[campgottagopee]

As much as car salespeople are maligned I think that mortgage brokers and closing attorneys can be worse...and more expensive.

Throw in doctors and you have all the makings of a good/bad joke.

 

[gmcunni]

$4.30 or so local in my town, up to 4:35 for credit in a place or two. Costco - $4.02 for credit!

 

[wa-loaf]

$4.30 or so local in my town, up to 4:35 for credit in a place or two. Costco - $4.02 for credit!

Paid $3.93 two days ago. I'm sure it'll be over 4 by my next fill-up.

 

[riverc0il]

I disagree with the "do as I say" characterization. Higher prices drives innovation, to be sure, but I don't think efficiency is a moral requirement. It should certianly be a viable option, though.

Absolutely, well said. And as noted above, we are chatting about fuel on a forum for a very ungreen activity. Which doesn't mean those of us interested in minimizing our impacts shouldn't take some action to do so, even if it is short of not going at all.

But back to the point ctenidae eloquently made, we can see this in action regarding innovation vs lifestyle when you compare hybrids in the marketplace today. Hybrids are generally more about a lifestyle choice and an image thing than really being about MPG.

Why are cars hitting 40 MPG now but they weren't a few years ago? This is actually not innovation but rather demand. Economy cars have been able to hit 40+ MPG for almost 20 years now (Honda CR-X). But everyone wanted more HP and bigger cars, those were more in demand than MPG.

Now look at where we are. Subaru Impreza 2012 hits 36 MPG by dropping, what... 42 HP or something like that? Would have been a total bomb a few years ago. Even now the fanboys still cry in their beer about that loss of HP.

I say that the real innovation is yet to come. Though mid-sized cars are starting to get up there, which is quite impressive (though, heck, some economy cars of today are about as big as mid-sized cars a dozen years ago). It is interesting to see CVT bumping MPG well above manual. There is more coming for sure.

But yea, totally no moral imperative. And today's MPG bumps really are not very innovated, IMO, yet but rather response to demand. Once the demand really starts ramping up, I think we'll start seeing some cool stuff... especially when cost of gas gets to the point that more expensive cars are worth the tread off for increased MPG. We are not quite there yet (see diesel and Prius pricing vs today's best economy cars).

 

[deadheadskier]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I do think if someone is asking for $5 gas to force innovation, but doesn't walk the talk, that their vote doesn't count. It likes a Senator voting for war, but not wanting their kid to enlist.

I especially have a problem with it when the person who's rooting for $5 gas isn't affected much by it at all. Would that same individual root for $20/gallon gasoline? Because that's the level they'd need to pay to feel the effects an average american feels.

 

[mondeo]

I'm interested in the 2016ish time frame. With the 787 and A350 in production, carbon should start being cheaper, with ever improving methods of laying up and curing. Save 20% on the weight of the structure, you can cut power accordingly, the smaller engines giving even more weight savings.

Don't discount the 110 lbs or whatever shaved from the Impreza. That's worth a mpg on its own, and makes the driver never miss 5 hp at the same time. Power alone isn't the enemy of efficiency, it's primarily the weight that tends to come along with it.