Gasoline War

[Vector4fun]

If it weren't for the negative effect on the economy and jobs, I'd actually be tickled to see gas reach $3.00 or more for a few months. I'd like to see the folks who shucked out $35 grand for a gas hog to commute to work, (and I know a few) loose their arses trying to peddle it for .20 on the dollar.

For the record, my wife drives an Accord. I drive a standard cab PU because I have need of a PU. But it's a 6 cyl, standard tranny, and gets 20 mpg. I also have a utility trailer that hauls a ton and pulls easily behind my little six cyl, should I need more room than my short bed.

On the other hand, I work with guys that think a 1 ton 4wd diesel crew cab is the proper vehicle to commute 30 miles to work in. And they don't own a 23' boat either.

Bend over guys, our Arab "Allies" are fixin' to show a little love for all our efforts to bring peace and prosperity to their neighborhood.....

 

[jarhead]

Vector4fun

I am puzzled as to why you would take some sort of joy, in seeing the discomfort of others, who simply have a different view than yours on their choice of vehicle? That really bothers me, when people enjoy the discomfort of another human. Why will you be "tickled" to see someone else in distress? Every vehicle sold in America is a legal means of conveyance, and if there are 2 million SUV's and pick up trucks on the road, there are 2 million different reasons why the owner bought them. Do you have some sort of sense of superiority of thought, that only YOUR reason for having a truck is the only PROPER reason? This is America, and we are free to make those choices; yet you like it when people you have never met have an economic setback? I expect you will not answer the question I pose as to your mean spirited attitude on this, but will probably pontificate about why you have the only PROPER conveyance, and people who own a truck or SUV DESERVE to suffer.

 

[AeroBoy]

When the gas prices start to climb (and they will), those who bought a 10-mpg SUV/truck/whatever because they actually needed its capacity/capability will be able to justify keeping the vehicle and paying more for gas. However, the majority who bought their 10-mpg SUV,etc solely for, say, the 30-mile commute to work everyday will eventually rethink what their driving and trade it in for a car that gets 30 mpg. This simply is economics at work.

Re: fuel taxes. As long as these revenues are used to repair and upgrade road infrastructure, I will gladly pay them. Think of them as "user fees" for drivers--those who drive more pay more, those who drive less pay less; and those who drive large vehicles that cause more wear and tear on the roads pay more than those who drive lighter-weight cars that are gentler to pavement and bridges.

 

[flyifrvfr]

When the gas prices start to climb (and they will), those who bought a 10-mpg SUV/truck/whatever because they actually needed its capacity/capability will be able to justify keeping the vehicle and paying more for gas. However, the majority who bought their 10-mpg SUV,etc solely for, say, the 30-mile commute to work everyday will eventually rethink what their driving and trade it in for a car that gets 30 mpg. This simply is economics at work.

Re: fuel taxes. As long as these revenues are used to repair and upgrade road infrastructure, I will gladly pay them. Think of them as "user fees" for drivers--those who drive more pay more, those who drive less pay less; and those who drive large vehicles that cause more wear and tear on the roads pay more than those who drive lighter-weight cars that are gentler to pavement and bridges.

The big rigs which I drive are already taxed for heavy highway use. We also purchase 300 gallons of diesel fuel each time we fill up. That is roughly $500.00 per fill up, how much more should we pay. I could go on about how everthing you own or use has made it's way to you by truck but I suspect I don't need to do this. Think about this, If it continues to cost me more money in fuel and other taxes to bring you the items you use everyday in everyones life, doesn't it make since that it would only cost you more to get it. I the driver or company owner will not eat the cost of fuel, it gets passed on by surcharges and increased hauling rates. The manufacture will not eat the cost of increased hauling rates it gets passed onto the distribution companies. The distribution companies will not eat the increased cost of hauling rates it gets past onto the companies who retail everyday items. The retailer is not going to eat these increased rates, so they pass the increases onto the consumer, that's you and me. As you can see it is a nasty viscious cycle. Which aslo proves that gasoline is what makes the world go round.

 

[Mogus]

Americans can bring the prices down by getting rid of the stupid, useless SUVs and buying CARS.

When I say "useless," That is extended to mean the majority of people who drive them, yet have no real use for them (Soccer Moms). Most men who want to haul things use trucks.

How the hell would you know that the majority of people who drive SUV's have no use for them? Quit throwing out generalities you can't back up. Drop your stereo-types, too. A lot of men have families who want to haul things AND people. Do you ever actually think through what you're going to say before you say it? An extension of that question is do you think things through before you act in your Cessna? You've shown your thought-process to be piss-poor. Stop flying and talking and quit smoking out back in school; go to class and pay attention.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

How the hell would you know that the majority of people who drive SUV's have no use for them? Quit throwing out generalities you can't back up. Drop your stereo-types, too. A lot of men have families who want to haul things AND people. Do you ever actually think through what you're going to say before you say it? An extension of that question is do you think things through before you act in your Cessna? You've shown your thought-process to be piss-poor. Stop flying and talking and quit smoking out back in school; go to class and pay attention.

All you have to do is look at the marketing strategy and the SUV designs. Various surveys have shown that SUV's are not used for the purpose for which they were designed (or at least the portrayed image). The roughest terrain encountered would be the speedbumps at the mall.

First, the majority of SUV's are designed to look as if they have off-road capability yet are very incapable. The suspension systems are designed for highway comfort, not anywhere near "utility", or "sport" for that matter. Most are sold with touring tires and even low profile tires resembling the tires of sport cars with real cornering ability. Given the relative lateral instablity of SUV's, this is ridiculous. The ones that are indeed useful are few at best.

SUVs are targeted to car buyers that are not familiar with the crappy handling, poor braking, higher roll-over tendency etc. The capability to demolish a Honda Civic in a collision does not a safer vehicle make. This is reflected in accident statistics.

The marketing is designed to appeal to egos. Slogans such as "All Others Yield" on a Cadillac Escalade ad are representative of most advertising for SUV's. These companies are clearly selling an image as opposed to a tool. Most SUV owners have bought into that image. It is apparent that you are somehow threatened by this reality. You can only answer why.

If you need to pull a trailer, traverse lesser roads etc. great! More power to you. If you want to haul things and people, get a mini-van. They aren't very macho or ego boosting but, they are quite capable. As for one post that made a comparisson with other vehicles that use more fuel i.e. semi trucks; Those are indeed true utility vehicles and their fuel burn/load hauling ratio is truly maximized.

Clear away all the rationalizations and vanity BS and you'll see that most people don't actually need them.

 

[A Squared]

Why it won't work.

As has already been pointed out, to limit gas purchaces to non-brand name companies will tend to push prices up on non-brand name gas, by increasing the demand for it.


The correct way to use the market to drive prices down is to carefully research gas pries and always buy form the lowest price supplier, regardless of brand or lack there of.

The trouble with this is that the people who care enough about gas prices to actually do this are probably already doing this. The vast majority, while noting gas prices are probably not going to inconvenience themselves too much for the sake of small savings. They might go a couple of blocks for cheaper gas, but not all the way across town. Then of course there are those who believe that buying brand name gas gets them a beter product.

 

[flyifrvfr]

I myself don't really care about what people choose to drive. I can't force my opinion on others and can expect the same in return. This said, people who drive SUV'S are classified as "Yuppy, OR Soccor Moms." These were the demographic manufactures targeted for this type of vehicle. Ask anyone of the owners why they drive such a vehicle and they will say they feel safer in the larger vehicle. Regardless of the cost for these SUV'S they make a person feel safer true or not it is their choice to drive them. I usually tell the owners that safety is relative, get hit by a Honda Civic and your golden, hit a semi and your screwed. I feel safest when I'm in my tractor trailer, but I won't buy another one and use it as a personal vehicle.

 

[jarhead]

BornAgainPagan

With no disrespect intended, Pagan, you simply do not know what you’re talking about in much of your last Post. I am going to tell you a few things from first hand knowledge. I have owned SUV’s for ten years now. My first one was a full sized Ford Bronco (no longer made), and my current SUV, a 1997 Ford Expedition with the small V-8, and over 112,000 miles on it.

It is, I repeat IS, a functional off road vehicle that takes me into places no car could ever make it without getting hopelessly bogged down in mud or snow. This is not speculation. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve driven into a muddy field to hook a tow rope to the undercarriage of a sedan or mini van that was up to its axels in mud, and then literally drag that vehicle back to the road bed. These were usually inexperienced hunters going where they thought they’d be able to drive in boggy muddy conditions. How you can assert that an SUV is not designed to actually do this, and is only a marketing tool? It is a fantasy on your part. Total fantasy.

In early February I drove across the length of Wyoming in a blinding, heavy snow storm. I came upon a highway rest stop, and pulled off I-80 to use the bathroom. On the way up the ramp to the rest stop, two conventional sedans were hopelessly stuck in 10 inches of new, wet snow. I just went around them, over the curb, and back onto the snow covered blacktop, and got to the snow covered parking area by the building with the toilets. Up there, there were a dozen cars and mini vans stuck in the snow. I went in the building to use the John, and there was a line up at the pay phone, with people phoning a tow truck service in Laramie to come and pull them out. I ‘whizzed’, got back into the Expedition, and went on my way with high road clearance, 4 wheel drive, and 255-75R-16 tires with mud and snow cleated tread, through 10 inches of snow that was jack-knifing a lot of 18 wheelers. Don’t tell me that they are not functional for the purpose. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Crappy handling and rollovers???? My expedition handles better than any vehicle I have ever driven. I saw dozens of rollovers on that trip through Wyoming, and ALL of them were sedans and mini vans.

I have no “image” I want to build. I am an outdoorsman, and this vehicle is what fills my needs, not my “ego” or “image”. Then you suggest that if I want to haul stuff, fine, get a truck or an SUV, but if we want to haul people, get a mini van. Pardon? How about if I want to haul people, AND pull a boat, AND pull a camper, AND haul sheet rock. I should buy a vehicle for each function? Are you suggesting I own 4 or 5 vehicles for selective tasks? No thank you! I choose one vehicle that does ALL things for me that my life centers around. There might be people who can ride a pogo stick to work down a sunny, paved street. Fine, do it if that’s your bag. Just don’t try to sell something you have no first hand knowledge or experience with.

 

[Freddie Spencer]

Homer sees the Canyonero and decides to buy the SUV for himself. He soon discovers that it is an SUV designed for soccer moms. He quits driving it and Marge starts using it. It is the perfect automobile for her and she becomes more aggressive behind the wheel. She gets pulled over for road rage and has to go to traffic school. Her problems are more extensive than the other students and she gets into trouble again. Marge's driver's license is revoked. Meanwhile, Homer has taken Bart and Lisa to the zoo. When the rhinos begin stampeding, they become trapped. At Chief Wiggum's request, Marge comes to the rescue using the power of her SUV and road rage to save the day, ultimately at the cost of her Canyonero.

 

[jarhead]

Freddie

I hope you don't model your life or make your decisions based on a cartoon charactor! Doh!

 

[BoDEAN]

http://www.gaspricewatch.com


cool site

 

[Vector4fun]

Re: Vector4fun

I am puzzled as to why you would take some sort of joy, in seeing the discomfort of others, who simply have a different view than yours on their choice of vehicle? That really bothers me, when people enjoy the discomfort of another human. Why will you be "tickled" to see someone else in distress?

Then you and your fellow SUV drivers feel pangs of guilt that this country is grossly over-dependant on foreign oil? Do you suffer remorse that *I* have to pay for EXPENSIVE yearly emmissions testing SOLELY because the air is poluted by thousands of inefficient vehicles? Does it bother you that our roads and bridges are falling apart, beat to death by more traffic than they were designed to carry, and my road taxes are going up?

I didn't think so. I imagine you have as much compassion for my issues as I have for yours.

I expect you will not answer the question I pose as to your mean spirited attitude on this, but will probably pontificate about why you have the only PROPER conveyance, and people who own a truck or SUV DESERVE to suffer.

Here's what I'll "pontificate". I don't know a half dozen people who drive a 1 ton crew cab or Suburban that NEEDS one for any reason other than vanity. That's it. It's simply a "MACHO" minivan to them. I don't have a single issue with a rancher or farmer or contractor who NEEDS such a vehicle. I understand that some areas of the country have a lot of snow and ice, But four out of five *I* know here in urban Texas that claim they "need" one are only spewing BS to justify the $550/mo payment to their wives or themselves. It snowed all of 1/4" this winter. Lasted about three hours.

I heard all the same crap back in the '70s, and people eventually dumped their Lincolns and Caddys for pennies on the dollar in some cases. Guess what, after a period of adjustment, life went on. People found Accords, Corollas and diesel Rabbits. Moms still got the kids to school, the kids still got to soccer practice, and Dad got 40 mpg to/from work. People don't die from fuel economy. Now gas is and has been relatively cheap for a decade, and this country is right back in the same predicament it was in the '70s. (btw my son reports gas in Japan is around $3.80/gal) I simply assume history is going to repeat it's self. So drive what you want, be it a $40k SUV or BMW 500 series. I'll only have sympathy for the BMW driver.

 

[jarhead]

I never asked for your sympathy, nor do I want it. I was curious only as to why you would take joy in someone else getting into finacial difficulty. That seems perverted to me.

I take issue when you, or anyone else, feels that they are the arbitrator of what my needs or wants are. You become the official "line drawer" that no one should cross. Someone else might draw the line that cuts you and your values out. Maybe they will feel that you, with your six cylinder pick up, and your wife with the accord, are hurting mother earth too much for their sensibilties. They may then recommend that you should commute to work on roller blades or a pogo stick. I bet you would not like their "line". The reason America is great, is that we have free choice, and have markets that will control prices.

That you would find joy in someones distress is what offends me.

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: Vector4fun

Do you suffer remorse that *I* have to pay for EXPENSIVE yearly emmissions testing SOLELY because the air is poluted by thousands of inefficient vehicles?
I [/B]

Sorry Vector, but you're off base with this one. A modern computer controlled SUV is no less efficient than an Accord. I'd be willing to bet that lawn mowers emit more smog into the central
Texas skys than do our SUV's. If you really want to help clean the air, get rid of mowers, weed eaters, blowers, boats, and older autos. The emissions tests you refer to, are in place to police vehicles that emit more than the allowed levels of pollutants. The tests are a way to force the owners of older autos to maintain their cars in the proper manner. I read once in a auto trade publication that the modern, well maintained auto emits nothing more than water over 99% of the time. Those F350 duallys you dislike may be wasting fuel according to your standards, but they aren't adding to pollution.

Another way to help increase overall efficiency would be for you to encourage your reps to legislate a tax advantage for low emision diesel powered vehicles. The technology exists for such powerplants, (most of Europe drives one), but the low grade diesel sold here is not compatible them. Diesel power is wonderful. The average driver would never know that a new VW Beetle was powered by a diesel if he never had to add fuel. That's how quite and responsive they are, they also get 45 to 50MPG. If I was SWA instead of Spirit, I'd be first on the list to buy a TDpowered VW Toureg. I'd have to be on a "list", because they aren't sold here, yet.

regards,
enigma

 

[Vector4fun]

Enigma,

I'll have to differ with you on this one. The following is from a 2003 report to Congress regarding SUV and light truck emissions:

Emissions Standards

Before 1975, all light trucks were classified by EPA as “light duty vehicles”, i.e.
passenger cars. However, in a case brought by International Harvester, the U.S. Court of
Appeals concluded that light trucks should be classified differently, due to the agricultural
and commercial nature of their use.15 Therefore, light trucks were given their own
classification and have faced less stringent emissions standards since MY1975. Under
the current CAA “Tier 1” standards, light trucks are allowed to emit higher levels of
pollution with each heavier weight class. Furthermore, Tier 1 standards for light trucks
are generally less stringent than those for passenger cars. Only vehicles in the LDT1 class
meet the same standards as passenger cars.16 Most SUVs and pickups, and all vans, are
currently permitted to emit 29% to 47% more carbon monoxide (CO) and 75% to 175%
more nitrogen oxides (NOx ) than passenger cars. (40 CFR 86)

Note, those figures are for "light" trucks, and the F-350 dually you mention doesn't even qualify as a light truck, so it's much worse. But I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

jarhead,

No disrespect to you either.

First. You obviously do have a justified need but, you are in the minority. My contention that most do not need one for the various reasons (ego, vanity etc.) still stands. I say this because I actively keep up with the automotive industry through many methods such as keeping up with numerous publications to name a few.

Second. You said;

Crappy handling and rollovers???? My expedition handles better than any vehicle I have ever driven. I saw dozens of rollovers on that trip through Wyoming, and ALL of them were sedans and mini vans.

Your observations are merely anecdotal. Yes, SUV's do have crappy handling and higher occurences of roll-over accidents. Simple physics for one. SUV's have a higher CG. Also, just look at the stats from the non-profit Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. http://www.hwysafety.org/

The facts speak for themselves.

Obviously I wasn't talking about heavy hauling when I suggested mini vans. It just so happens that most (not all, not you) SUV owners use their SUV's for grocery shopping and shuttling kids. This can be done in a mini van.

 

[jarhead]

Pagan,

Are you suggesting that families should own two different types of vehicles for multi functions? In other words, they should buy a $30,000 Dodge Caravan for groceries and hauling the kids around, and then a $35,000 Pick Up truck or SUV (which is really a pick-up decked out with jazzy interior) for their heavy duty needs? That just seems a bit extreme to me. When you see the “soccer mom” in the SUV at the play ground in an SUV, are you automatically assuming that she does not have a true need for that type of utility vehicle, for other purposes?