I was thinking about numbers this evening.

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Its kinda funny how people tend to ignore things when someone (Al Gore...) gets on a soapbox about them, but in some cases, it really is in people's best interests to do it. In this case, think of how much nicer of a car you could afford (or extra features) if you pocketed that $5000 instead of spending it on gas. I think if people did more thinking about how using less energy benefits them directly, they might actually put forth the effort.

This kinda reminds me of the guy who checked the old fridge he used to store beer in his garage to see how much it electricity it used, discovering it was costing him close to $40 a month to power it. I believe he bought a much newer (and far more efficient) fridge and then he had more money for the beer to stock in it.

Exactly.

A few years ago I was commuting 70 miles a day and after putting 24k miles on a vehicle I owned in one year I started looking at alternatives (this was in the year 2000 BTW) and I found there were two people I worked with who lived within a couple miles of me who carpooled two or three days each week so I got permission from my boss to start earlier and leave earlier and I started carpooling with them. We would meet at 6AM at the person's house who was driving that day and we'd all hop in that person's car and ride to work.

So, I'd drive myself in every Monday and one other day that week with my carpool group and on Friday I'd park at the train station, which is only a few miles from my house, ride the train down to Sorrento Valley and ride my bike the 9 miles from the train station to work. I saved a bunch of money in gas and wear and tear on my car and the bike commuting on Friday saved me from a hellish evening commute that generally took the same amount of time as me biking/taking the train, which was much less stressful.

I put less than 15k miles on my car the following year.

There are almost always alternatives.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/FoBoT/doom.jpg

Where did I mention doom in my post? This is just about economics.

I guess if I thought oil was a commodity with infinite supply I'd probably respond as you just did...or I'd have never posted this to begin with. Then again, oil is currently $100/barrel...I'm sure you are right.

I know you're not getting into the whole oil price thing. But didn't oil trade over $100 per barrel because of one person. This person purchased the minimum numbr of units (1 = 1000 barrels) for over $100/barrel and then sold them immediately for a loss, just so he could record the first $100/barrel trade price?

Yup, I think I heard it right.

It's just semantics since oil is near $100/barrel, but not consistantly trading at that amount.

The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of oil. Most of that being used for jet fuel. Mabey the military should be scaled back.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/FoBoT/doom.jpg

Where did I mention doom in my post? This is just about economics.

I guess if I thought oil was a commodity with infinite supply I'd probably respond as you just did...or I'd have never posted this to begin with. Then again, oil is currently $100/barrel...I'm sure you are right.

I know you're not getting into the whole oil price thing. But didn't oil trade over $100 per barrel because of one person. This person purchased the minimum numbr of units (1 = 1000 barrels) for over $100/barrel and then sold them immediately for a loss, just so he could record the first $100/barrel trade price?

Yup, I think I heard it right.

It's just semantics since oil is near $100/barrel, but not consistantly trading at that amount.

The Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of oil. Most of that being used for jet fuel. Mabey the military should be scaled back.

I wonder how much of that goes into stockpiling.

Still, since that's not a number any of us has any direct control over I don't see how that has any bearing on this discussion. Maybe you should start a thread on this in P&N?

 

[biggestmuff]

Oil is natural. It's from the earth so it's okay to use.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Oil is natural. It's from the earth so it's okay to use.

I only use organic.

On a serious note I think many people are waking up to the fact that a "nice" car isn't necessarily defined by the size of th engine.

What does irritate me is people getting on an anti-suv soap box and then have no problem when someone commutes in an STI or a S500 which gets similar gas mileage. What about people who buy huge homes and heat them using fossil fuels even though they barely use the space. What about people who leave the lights on all night. They are all wasting energy...so getting all high and mighty on just one group of people who do what nearly all American's do is just irritating. Being energy conscious is great..being an ass about it is not.

 

[redgtxdi]

Well, FWIW, I get what you're sayin' Jules.


Makes sense to me.

Heck, even economically, I'm surprised at how many new sub-20mpg cars drive off lots today.

Even when I'm thinking about my next car. I toss i-4 vs. v-6 all the time. (I'm too cheap to go V-6 anyway).

Yet........the motors keep getting bigger & bigger. HP keeps going up & up. Torque keeps going up & up.

V8's, V12's.........it's never enough.

Sorry, but I purposely parked my '98 F150 Scab a couple years ago (averaging 3K miles/yr the last 2 years in it) and bought a '95 Corolla simply for the economic factor. W/ a 1.6 liter, 3-speed 4-banger.......I can't pass horsh!t flowin' uphill w/ an empty trunk.........but I get twice the mpg as my truck.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I wonder how much of that goes into stockpiling.

Still, since that's not a number any of us has any direct control over I don't see how that has any bearing on this discussion. Maybe you should start a thread on this in P&N?

I have no idea how much goes into stockpiling. The navy ships use a LOT of fuel per hour.

I would start a P&N thread if I intended to kill a few billion brain cells, but instead I'll just use some good scotch to get the same results.

My post was there because you brought up the topic of $100/barrel, so it was relevant to some degree.

As for fuel consumption, I'm guilty of using a lot. I spend a good $400-$500 per month on gas. I drive a subaru that gets about 25-26mpg in mixed driving conditions. I'd love to be able to get 10 more mpg with the same type of car. If only America would more readily embrace diesel.

 

[BrownTown]

Man there are alot of really pitiful responses in this thread. The OP is not trying to say anything about global warming or saving the environment or peak oil or politics or Al Gore or any of that cr@p all he is talking about is MONEY. And yet half the responses are about completely unrelated things, some even attacking the OP like he is trying to make a political statement or something like that when all he is trying to do is show how much money ya'll could save if you buy a more fuel efficient car. Ya know its just an example of considering lifecycle costs and not just up front costs when buying a car, a more fuel efficient car can save you money and thats something EVERYONE can relate to no matter what your feelings on the environment or political affiliation is.

 

[aplefka]

Yeah but if you drive a vehicle that gets 35mpg you can't compensate for a small penis at all, even if you do lift it. What will all the bros do?

 

[upsciLLion]

I get between 200 and 300 miles per gallon on the bus. What's up now, Jules?

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion
I get between 200 and 300 miles per gallon on the bus. What's up now, Jules?

You're still a jackass for letting the ATOT band down either way, even if you get 5000 miles per gallon.

 

[sonambulo]

I walk.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Man there are alot of really pitiful responses in this thread. The OP is not trying to say anything about global warming or saving the environment or peak oil or politics or Al Gore or any of that cr@p all he is talking about is MONEY. And yet half the responses are about completely unrelated things, some even attacking the OP like he is trying to make a political statement or something like that when all he is trying to do is show how much money ya'll could save if you buy a more fuel efficient car. Ya know its just an example of considering lifecycle costs and not just up front costs when buying a car, a more fuel efficient car can save you money and thats something EVERYONE can relate to no matter what your feelings on the environment or political affiliation is.

I really don't see any posts directly related to global warming, political affiliation peak oil, Al Gore or the environment. The majority of the posts are right on topic and I see very little material attacking the OP. Mabey you're reading a different thread than I am?

Many people aren't too concerned about the money they will save by driving a more fuel efficient car. Personally I do to a degree because I use so much gas, but I won't compromise myself to save a few bucks.

Using the OPs average numbers, the cost savings over a 5 year period between the 17mpg vehicle and the 35 mpg are rather minimal for most people. Say it averages out to be $1,700 per year saved if you switched vehicles, that's mabey 2%-3% of my income. I piss out that much money in just beer consumption alone. That amount of money may matter to someone else a lot more though.

Though I understand what you're saying about everyone relating to saving money. I'd love to be able to get 40mpg or go about my life without driving so much, but the reality is it's just not going to happen.

On a side note, there is the notion (and some information to back it up) that says when people get high gas mileage vehicles they are inclined to drive a lot more, which in turn uses more gas.

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/FoBoT/doom.jpg

Where did I mention doom in my post? This is just about economics.

I guess if I thought oil was a commodity with infinite supply I'd probably respond as you just did...or I'd have never posted this to begin with. Then again, oil is currently $100/barrel...I'm sure you are right.

Oil is still less expensive than bottled water, and so is gasoline.

R

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I wonder how much of that goes into stockpiling.

Still, since that's not a number any of us has any direct control over I don't see how that has any bearing on this discussion. Maybe you should start a thread on this in P&N?

I have no idea how much goes into stockpiling. The navy ships use a LOT of fuel per hour.

I would start a P&N thread if I intended to kill a few billion brain cells, but instead I'll just use some good scotch to get the same results.

My post was there because you brought up the topic of $100/barrel, so it was relevant to some degree.

As for fuel consumption, I'm guilty of using a lot. I spend a good $400-$500 per month on gas. I drive a subaru that gets about 25-26mpg in mixed driving conditions. I'd love to be able to get 10 more mpg with the same type of car. If only America would more readily embrace diesel.

Gasoline and other refined products (including jet fuel) aren't stock piled. Most refined products don't have a very long shelf life. Currently the strategic petroleum reserve has 688.5 million barrels of crude oil, mostly sour crude. The US has a total refining capacity of around 17.5 million barrels, and we use every bit of the refined product (as gasoline, diesel, jet, fuel oil, and byproducts). The strategic petroleum reserve has enough capacity to keep all the US refineries running for 40 days at their rated capacity. This assumes that all the refineries in the US have access via pipeline to the SPR, which isn't the case. Many of the refineries on the west coast would need shipments of crude to come through Panama or around the tip of South America. Some East Coast refineries may have trouble getting their hands on crude as well.

R

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: bctbct
Yeah, some trade comfort for money.

You don't need to sit alone in a $45k SUV guzzling gas at a rate of 14mpg to be comfortable. That's just complete bullshit. Hell, I'm happy riding a bicycle to work a couple days a week. I was also comfortable and enjoyed carpooling when I did it 3 days a week for almost a year a few years ago...and I did that was alternating between a Toyota Camry/Nissan Pathfinder/Toyota Tundra.

This is a free country and people are free to drive an 18 wheeler to work if they really want to. I don't care if you're happy riding a pogo stick to work, other people might not be and its none of your business what they drive to work.

BTW, I drive a 2000 honda civic but I'm tired of people like you trying to tell everyone else what to do. If someone wants to be an idiot and spend a fortune on gas just so they can drive an SUV that's their choice.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

My car does approx 60 miles per imperial gallon, or 48 for a US liquid gallon.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I get 117mpg on my 150cc motorcycle. No plans on buying a car yet but when I do, it'd be a 35+mpg vehicle. Ultimately, it's not about global warming, oil shortages and whatnots - it's all about more coin in my wallet. Thanks to how god-awful traffic is around here, there is very little 'joy' to be had in driving and it has all come down to utility/function and getting your ass where it belongs as safely as possible.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
I get 117mpg on my 150cc motorcycle. No plans on buying a car yet but when I do, it'd be a 35+mpg vehicle. Ultimately, it's not about global warming, oil shortages and whatnots - it's all about more coin in my wallet. Thanks to how god-awful traffic is around here, there is very little 'joy' to be had in driving and it has all come down to utility/function and getting your ass where it belongs as safely as possible.

This is my line of thinking also. I am looking for the best bang for my buck. Global warming be dammed (it's a sham anyway, every prominent scientist thought we were heading for a millennia long ice age just a decade or two ago).

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: bctbct
Yeah, some trade comfort for money.

You don't need to sit alone in a $45k SUV guzzling gas at a rate of 14mpg to be comfortable. That's just complete bullshit. Hell, I'm happy riding a bicycle to work a couple days a week. I was also comfortable and enjoyed carpooling when I did it 3 days a week for almost a year a few years ago...and I did that was alternating between a Toyota Camry/Nissan Pathfinder/Toyota Tundra.

What IS complete Bullshit is you pretending to be the moral energy compass, typical hypocrite. :roll:

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Man there are alot of really pitiful responses in this thread. The OP is not trying to say anything about global warming or saving the environment or peak oil or politics or Al Gore or any of that cr@p all he is talking about is MONEY. And yet half the responses are about completely unrelated things, some even attacking the OP like he is trying to make a political statement or something like that when all he is trying to do is show how much money ya'll could save if you buy a more fuel efficient car. Ya know its just an example of considering lifecycle costs and not just up front costs when buying a car, a more fuel efficient car can save you money and thats something EVERYONE can relate to no matter what your feelings on the environment or political affiliation is.

I will honestly say that is why I drive my Insight, and my Explorer stays parked unless I need a utility vehicle. Saving the environment / using less oil is secondary to saving me money.

To the OP, on your scale my vehicle would use about $3,500 - $4,500 in fuel as my summer average is over 70mpg, while my winter average has taken a dive to a low of 50mpg. These are tank and not trip averages.

Edit: I just noticed, I posted the numbers for $4 / gallon, at $3 / gallon they are more like $3,000 to $4,000 for 70,000 miles.

Before this I drove a Saturn SC2 which got half the mileage of the Insight and the Explorer gets half the mileage of the Saturn.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: bctbct
Yeah, some trade comfort for money.

You don't need to sit alone in a $45k SUV guzzling gas at a rate of 14mpg to be comfortable. That's just complete bullshit. Hell, I'm happy riding a bicycle to work a couple days a week. I was also comfortable and enjoyed carpooling when I did it 3 days a week for almost a year a few years ago...and I did that was alternating between a Toyota Camry/Nissan Pathfinder/Toyota Tundra.

This is a free country and people are free to drive an 18 wheeler to work if they really want to. I don't care if you're happy riding a pogo stick to work, other people might not be and its none of your business what they drive to work.

BTW, I drive a 2000 honda civic but I'm tired of people like you trying to tell everyone else what to do. If someone wants to be an idiot and spend a fortune on gas just so they can drive an SUV that's their choice.

Well it may be a free country, but that waste will eventually come back to bite ALL of us in the butt.

 

[vi edit]

In my truck I used to get around 300 miles out of a tank and it usually took 17 gallons to fille up. And that's just from going from a vehicle that averages around 18 gallons to one that averages around 25.

In the car that we traded for (many more reasons than fuel economy) I get the same distance out of 12 gallons. I fill up about 3x a month. That's a $45/month savings. Just in gas.

We'll be replacing the Highlander this spring and see a similar savings. So there's another $45/month savings.

That's almost $1100 a year by doing really nothing different.

Take that times 25 million households and that's a HUGE number.

Over 27 BILLION...just in savings by getting an average of 8MPG more out of two cars in a household over a year.

 

[lokiju]

I was wondering the other day.

Say everyone one day drives 50MPG cars.

That'd mean that less gas would be bought on average.

As a result, wouldn't the cost of gas have to be raised in order to compensate for the oil companies decline in sales?

If so, that kind of cancels out one of the large reasons for people to get more fuel efficient cars (in the long term).

I've been looking at getting a new car recently and have been trying to find the highest MPG car that has as much room as possible and as far as I can tell, there is just nothing out there that fits my wants and budget.

So in the mean time it's more cost effective for me to continue driving my gas guzzling SUV than to go into more debt and spend more per month than I'd save in gas just to get something thats more fuel efficient.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: lokiju
I've been looking at getting a new car recently and have been trying to find the highest MPG car that has as much room as possible and as far as I can tell, there is just nothing out there that fits my wants and budget.

What's on your wants list, other than space/comfort?