My SUV is no longer attractive due to high gas prices

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,196
4,869
126
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Gas is too expensive. Didnt we win the war?
Click to expand...
I've always wished the government would force car dealers to provide the first 2 years of gas for free (up to the typical 12000 miles per year). Obviously they would raise the price of the guzzlers in comparison to the fuel effiecient ones. Customers won't be significantly harmed (they get their money back in free gas). I know, I know this'll never happen.

Iraq still isn't producing as much oil as it did pre-war. Thus there is a major shortage of oil that we would have had over this last year if there wasn't a war.

 
S

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Gas is too expensive. Didnt we win the war?
Click to expand...
I've always wished the government would force car dealers to provide the first 2 years of gas for free (up to the typical 12000 miles per year). Obviously they would raise the price of the guzzlers in comparison to the fuel effiecient ones. Customers won't be significantly harmed (they get their money back in free gas). I know, I know this'll never happen.

Iraq still isn't producing as much oil as it did pre-war. Thus there is a major shortage of oil that we would have had over this last year if there wasn't a war.
Click to expand...

The only shortage is the one OPEC wishes to create.....
However, the grand economy of oil isnt as simple as "Open the flood gates!" as it would backfire in the end. Ah well, such is life.

 
Z

zimu

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2001
6,209
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Gas is too expensive. Didnt we win the war?
Click to expand...
I've always wished the government would force car dealers to provide the first 2 years of gas for free (up to the typical 12000 miles per year). Obviously they would raise the price of the guzzlers in comparison to the fuel effiecient ones. Customers won't be significantly harmed (they get their money back in free gas). I know, I know this'll never happen.

Iraq still isn't producing as much oil as it did pre-war. Thus there is a major shortage of oil that we would have had over this last year if there wasn't a war.
Click to expand...

Thats the most retarded thing i've ever heard.
a) chances are you'd be paying more for this extra priveledge than you would for gas for 2 years
b) if a above is not true, what if gas prices rise or fall dramatically, the dealer would go broke
c) what if the dealer goes broke. how do you get your free gas
d) what do dealers have to do with gas, AT ALL. like there is absolutely no correlation
e) why would anyone want to pay all that extra money up front, when they could instead be saving that money and earning interest.

there are so many things wrong with it, its absolutely the stupidest idea i've heard. worse than buying AOL shares.
 
Queasy

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: dullard
I've always wished the government would force car dealers to provide the first 2 years of gas for free (up to the typical 12000 miles per year). Obviously they would raise the price of the guzzlers in comparison to the fuel effiecient ones. Customers won't be significantly harmed (they get their money back in free gas). I know, I know this'll never happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, then the cost of cars or your taxes or both would go WAY up. The costs would be passed on to the consumer/taxpayer at some point.

Iraq still isn't producing as much oil as it did pre-war. Thus there is a major shortage of oil that we would have had over this last year if there wasn't a war.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are at pre-war levels right now. OPEC tightening up their oil shipments, gas needed for winter, etc caused prices to rise. You can expect prices to stay around the same level as factories start making the transition to their special summer blends (which are more expensive to begin with).

 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,196
4,869
126
Originally posted by: zimu

Thats the most retarded thing i've ever heard.
a) chances are you'd be paying more for this extra priveledge than you would for gas for 2 years
b) if a above is not true, what if gas prices rise or fall dramatically, the dealer would go broke
c) what if the dealer goes broke. how do you get your free gas
d) what do dealers have to do with gas, AT ALL. like there is absolutely no correlation
e) why would anyone want to pay all that extra money up front, when they could instead be saving that money and earning interest.
Click to expand...
I see you missed my sentence that I KNOW it won't happen. (a-c) are not an issue. The dealer gives you a gas card worth the price of current gas average for 24,000 miles of typical use. The dealer tacks that price onto the car price and thus the dealer isn't harmed, the dealer won't go broke, and you know you'll get your gas. (d) I wish there WAS a correlation between dealers and the products they sell (cars which use gas). At the moment there isn't any correlation between the seller and the required maintainence parts of their goods. I never like it when that connection isn't there. It encourages sellers to ignore the customers maintainence needs and instead focus on seller's profits. (e) There are minimal extra finance costs yes, but there are ways to deal with that. Instead of government subsidies for buying electric cars, they can give subsidies for this as it will directly make fuel efficient cars bought more often.

There are other methods of doing this: a tax that is equal to 2 years worth of gas at 12,000 miles a year. BUT the government pools that money, and immediately gives the average back to each consumer. Net result: gas guzzlers are more expensive, fuel efficient cars are cheaper. Same result as above. The key is that it makes the price of gas clear to the consumer who too often doesn't include gas price in their purchasing decisions.
 
Z

zimu

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2001
6,209
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: zimu

Thats the most retarded thing i've ever heard.
a) chances are you'd be paying more for this extra priveledge than you would for gas for 2 years
b) if a above is not true, what if gas prices rise or fall dramatically, the dealer would go broke
c) what if the dealer goes broke. how do you get your free gas
d) what do dealers have to do with gas, AT ALL. like there is absolutely no correlation
e) why would anyone want to pay all that extra money up front, when they could instead be saving that money and earning interest.
Click to expand...
I see you missed my sentence that I KNOW it won't happen. (a-c) are not an issue. The dealer gives you a gas card worth the price of current gas average for 24,000 miles of typical use. The dealer tacks that price onto the car price and thus the dealer isn't harmed, the dealer won't go broke, and you know you'll get your gas. (d) I wish there WAS a correlation between dealers and the products they sell (cars which use gas). At the moment there isn't any correlation between the seller and the required maintainence parts of their goods. I never like it when that connection isn't there. It encourages sellers to ignore the customers maintainence needs and instead focus on seller's profits. (e) There are minimal extra finance costs yes, but there are ways to deal with that. Instead of government subsidies for buying electric cars, they can give subsidies for this as it will directly make fuel efficient cars bought more often.
Click to expand...

i disagree that there is no correlation between dealers and the maintenance as you say.

practically every new car now comes with warranty etc etc etc, they'll replace this for free, they'll fix this for free and so forth.

what you're confusing is maintenance costs versus real running costs. maintenance being repairs/ preventative measures to prevent break downs, where as the real running costs are for gas.

if you're speaking of car dealers who will pay for your gas- i.e. your running costs- you soon will have computer manufacturers paying for your electricity, or TV selling companies paying for your cable, PS2 playing for your games and so forth.

just makes no sense, see?
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,196
4,869
126
Originally posted by: zimu
i disagree that there is no correlation between dealers and the maintenance as you say.

practically every new car now comes with warranty etc etc etc, they'll replace this for free, they'll fix this for free and so forth.

what you're confusing is maintenance costs versus real running costs. maintenance being repairs/ preventative measures to prevent break downs, where as the real running costs are for gas.

if you're speaking of car dealers who will pay for your gas- i.e. your running costs- you soon will have computer manufacturers paying for your electricity, or TV selling companies paying for your cable, PS2 playing for your games and so forth.

just makes no sense, see?
Click to expand...
No I think REQUIRED items you MUST buy to use your product are maintainence. I just have a broader definition of it than you. To properly use your vehicle you must add gas, must add oil, must change filters, must replace broken parts, etc. All the same thing to me.

Like I said in my original post, this is my dream world - not the real world and I clearly stated it won't happen in the real world. In my dream world people would consider ALL costs when making decisions.
 
Z

zimu

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2001
6,209
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: zimu
i disagree that there is no correlation between dealers and the maintenance as you say.

practically every new car now comes with warranty etc etc etc, they'll replace this for free, they'll fix this for free and so forth.

what you're confusing is maintenance costs versus real running costs. maintenance being repairs/ preventative measures to prevent break downs, where as the real running costs are for gas.

if you're speaking of car dealers who will pay for your gas- i.e. your running costs- you soon will have computer manufacturers paying for your electricity, or TV selling companies paying for your cable, PS2 playing for your games and so forth.

just makes no sense, see?
Click to expand...
No I think REQUIRED items you MUST buy to use your product are maintainence. I just have a broader definition of it than you. To properly use your vehicle you must add gas, must add oil, must change filters, must replace broken parts, etc. All the same thing to me.
Click to expand...

ok, so should:
a) dealerships pay for your oil, filters, broken parts etc etc?
b) as i meantioned before, should pc manufacturers pay for your electricity, as to me this is a REQUIRED item for running a computer.
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,196
4,869
126
Originally posted by: zimu
ok, so should:
a) dealerships pay for your oil, filters, broken parts etc etc?
b) as i meantioned before, should pc manufacturers pay for your electricity, as to me this is a REQUIRED item for running a computer.
Click to expand...
(a) Many do as advertised on the TV all the time - daily I see ads with "We'll pay for your 3,000 mile checkups and oil changes for X years". Broken part repair is called a warranty - it is also already being done.
(b) When (1) it gets to the point that society feels electricity use is high enough to demand serious electricity regulations then yes and when (2) there are multiple choices and one is far more efficient than another then my answer is yes. Wasteful inefficient items should be penalised to encourage development and purchase of efficient items. I definately don't want the inefficient items banned - that is going too far in restricting our rights. But slight monetary encouragements to build and buy more efficient items is a good thing in my opinion (with emphasis on slight). At the moment there are serious gas regulations as demanded by society.

As for slight, my plan (tax with immediate payback to consumers) would add ~$600 to the price of a vehicle with 15 mpg and subtract ~$600 of the price of a vehicle that gets 30 mpg (math assumes each are bought in equal numbers, as I don't know the true numbers). So on a $30,000 SUV that adds 2% to the cost plus a fraction of a percent in extra financing costs of this $600. Thus the slight encouragement.
 
S

SWScorch

Diamond Member
May 13, 2001
9,520
1
76
I feel the opposite way. I currently own a small 2-door Pontiac Sunbird that averages 25-30 mpg. I'm looking to buy a Ford Ranger or a Jeep Cherokee soon. Why? Because I need 4wd, and my Sunbird can't even make it up my gf's driveway in the snow. Sure it may get only 18-22 mpg, but at least I'll be able to drive in the winter! (and for those of you saying wait until winter to buy it, I dont think this Sunbird will last that long... :()
 
D

DeeKnow

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2002
2,470
0
71
Quote

<HR>
<I>Originally posted by: <B>Shockwave</B></I>
Gas is too expensive. Didnt we win the war?
<HR>


sure we won the war.... it's time the big oil companies got some return on their investment, no??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom