Re: whats with the grips about gas prices?
- From: Spike <jma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:09:41 -0700
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:42:06 GMT, "walt peifer"
<lensman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"walt peifer" <lensman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:y148f.169981$xl6.75731@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>I know that gas has gotten more expensive over that past 6 months or so,
>>but already prices are rolling back here on the west coast of florida.
>>Paid $2.599 for regular yesterday. This morning same station had rolled
>>back to $2.549. if you inflation adjust prices going back to the early 90's
>>gas should be around $3.75 now if it kept pace with other items (gallon of
>>milk is now $3.99 at local walmart).
>> Our real complaint should be with the auto makers. With close to 20 years
>> of computer evolution in autos as well as head design, newer lighter
>> materials, fuel economy should be much higher. When I was in sales and
>> putting on over 150 miles per day, my 65 mustang 289 2-V automatic
>> averaged 21mpg. A recent article in "mustang monthy" showed that on a pony
>> ride a father and son team "raced" from home to a car show with a eye on
>> fuel economy. late model GT EFI with 5 speed vs 65 4-V with 4 speed the
>> 65 car trounced the late model as far as mpg.
>> Look at the latest gen of SUV's, not getting any better mileage than a
>> early 70's suburaban running a 350 carb engine with a puny little 3 speed
>> automatic. you'd think that with 4,5 or even 6 speed auto's and the
>> computer controls we should get substantialy better mileage with out
>> having to sacrifice reasonable performance and interior room.
>My original point still stands. (see below for documentation )we should have
>had bigger increases in gas mileage over 40 plus years. I conceded the
>points about emmissions and drivablity in my other posts.
>
>However lets look at emmissions briefly. If there is a substantal gain in
>MPG then emmission per mile driven would go down. (i.e. 100 mile trip at 10
>miles per gallon is 10 gallons of fuel burned, 100 mile trip at 50 MPG is 2
>gallons of fuel burned, as more americans are driving more mile per years an
>increase in fuel economy would reduce emmissions)
>oh by the way read the posting below or go direct to the web link
>
>http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&rssid=9851
>
>
>Every year since 1999, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
>ranked Ford cars, truck and SUVs as having the worst overall fuel economy of
>any American automaker. A recent report from the Union of Concerned
>Scientists ranks Ford as having "the absolute worst heat-trapping gas
>emissions performance of all the Big Six automakers." From subcompacts to
>SUVs, Ford's current line up gets fewer miles per gallon on average than the
>Model-T did over 80 years ago. According to the EPA's 2006 Fuel Economy
>Guide, three Ford models are among the eight listed as having the "lowest
>fuel economy among popular 2006 vehicles."
>
>http://www.globalexchange.org/war_peace_democracy/oil/864.html
>
>In the 2002 model year, the company's sport utility vehicles were 8.4
>percent more efficient than the vehicles the company made in the 2000 model
>year. But the S.U.V.'s produced this year are only 5.2 percent more
>efficient than those made in the 2000 model year, according to the company's
>corporate citizenship report.
>
>http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r05001.pdf
>
>After a decline from 22.1 mpg in 1988 to 21.0 mpg in 1994, fuel economy has
>beenrelatively constant for a decade. The average fuel economy for all model
>year 2005 light-duty vehicles is estimated to be 21.0 mpg, the same value as
>achieved in 1994 and thehighest since 1996, but five percent lower than the
>peak value achieved in 1987-88.Average model year 2005 fuel economy is 24.7
>mpg for cars and 18.2 mpg for light trucks.
>
>Since 1975, the fuel economy of the combined car and light truck fleet has
>moved through several phases: (1) a rapid increase from 1975 to the
>mid-1980s, (2) a slow increase extending into the late 1980s, (3) a decline
>from the peak in the late 1980s until the mid-1990s, and (4) since then a
>period of relatively constant overall fleet fuel economy. Viewing new cars
>and trucks separately, since 1996, the three-year moving average fuel
>economy for cars has ranged from 24.2 to 24.7 mpg, while that for trucks has
>ranged from 17.6 to 18.0 mpg, and that for all light-duty vehicles from 20.7
>to 21.1 mpg.
>
Isn't this all a bit like comparing apples and corn?
Model T's for their day were quite good, but no way could the
tolerances of today be attained, nor could the performance of today be
seen then... It was an era where there were essentially no roads for
the few autos there were to use them.
All in all, a totally different world.
Leap ahead to the 40s when gas was rationed along with all other
commodities for the war effort, when priority was in another world.
Then the late 40s and 50s. Very heavy machines but with big power and
resistively cheap gas, in an era of celebration of the end of all the
rationing, and other things that go with a post war period.
The late 60s and early 70s when thoughts were about Vietnam, not mpg.
The 70s when the great gas crunch hit home is when there was any real
thought about mpg. But, as is human nature, as soon as it eased off,
and people accepted the increased prices, the importance of fuel
economy faded (not away but to a lessor priority).
The 80s and 90s carried the economic boom which normally follows a
post war period; with all the money made in things like dot coms; when
who cared what gas cost because everyone was rich (or so it was
thought in some circles). The era of the Hummers and SUVs, bought by a
younger generation which had never personally experienced hard times.
A generation which seemed to view their world as a life of never
ending lavish luxury, with money flowing like water to be squandered.
Why should auto makers worry about mpg when they have an audience who
will pay the price, no matter how high it goes.
Then the dot com bust and so many people suddenly unemployed, and life
savings gone, and much reason to worry about the cost of gas. Now
we're in another crunch, compounded by natural disasters. Thoughts
again turn to fuel costs and economizing fuel use.
What will happen next? We will once again adapt to the increased cost,
and our collective minds will focus elsewhere. Then when things get
tight again, we'll think about why we have to pay so much for fuel,
and why our vehicles get such poor mileage.
There are far too many differences in the technologies, the mind sets,
and other factors, to make blanket assumptions about then and now.
Meanwhile, one oil company alone made more in profits than the 5 most
popular product companies (including Microsoft software, the iPod,
etc) put together according to a report I heard yesterday. Is that
money going to build new refineries? Find new reserves? Develop new
energy sources? Improve on old ones?
People are going to gripe about something. When they stop, that's the
time to really worry about what is coming....
--
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg
.
- References:
- Re: whats with the grips about gas prices?
- From: walt peifer
- Re: whats with the grips about gas prices?
- Prev by Date: Re: whats with the grips about gas prices?
- Next by Date: Re: engine rattle
- Previous by thread: Re: whats with the grips about gas prices?
- Next by thread: How to spend $15,850 on a new engine and run 13.9's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
