How high can gas go?

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Auryg

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
If the gas does go up to $4.00 a gallon, I'm riding a bicycle to work permanently. No way in hell I'm paying $50.00 to fill up my Jetta. That'll be $200 a month just in gas.

Lol I pay $350 a month to fill up my SUV
now probably $400

I can't comprehend why anyone would own a vehicle that costs that much to operate. Why not use public transportation or ride a bike?

City mentality. A very good portion of the United States lives either in a somewhat rural area or in a sprawling city. We're not addicted to cars; we need them, unless we're all going to pack up our bags and move.

Yeah..this isn't exactly bicycle territory.

There are people in Alaska and South Dakota who post on mtbr.com that ride in conditions like that all year. Not short trips, either. Studded bicycle tires, Surly Pugsley, that sort of thing makes it possible. I'm a bike nut, and even I think they're crazy.

Throw in traffic and snowplows (commute), and you're asking to die...lol

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
If the gas does go up to $4.00 a gallon, I'm riding a bicycle to work permanently. No way in hell I'm paying $50.00 to fill up my Jetta. That'll be $200 a month just in gas.

Lol I pay $350 a month to fill up my SUV
now probably $400

Wow! Seriously man, dump that thing.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not sure where you got your figures, but they're actually saying prices may go down this summer because people are driving less. So, the answer to your question: I would say $3.50-$4.00/gal

Keep in mind that OPEC is shooting itself in the foot. High energy prices harm economies, and young economies can be destroyed. When this happens, oil usage goes way down, and a glut of production hits the market. Speculators will then loose their shirts, and oil prices drop like a rock.

This has happened 3 times that I know of: to a lesser extent in 2006 (gas got to $1.89 at one point, but was short lived due to Katrina), in the mid 80s' (we had about 6 years of .89 gas), and in the late 70's (gas got to .35 at one point!)

I'm predicting something similar is going to happen here within the next 2 years.

What's cool about these situations is they cultivate advancements in technology. I'm betting hybrids will become the norm within the next 10 years, and pure electrics starting to trickle in. By the middle of the century, I'm seeing oil usage drop significantly, and the mid-east's economy tanking because they have no other natural resources to offer---other than solar.

Solar has an interesting future. NW Ohio is a hotbed for solar research (believe it or not), and they're making breakthroughs in inexpensive polymers for solar panel use. The idea is to make roof shingles out of this stuff and hooking it up to the electrical grid. They're saying they could generate up to 40% of our power needs if a large number of buildings put these shingles in place.

Wow...I really went off on a tangent here.

hmm i have heard the price is expected to shoot up.

I do agree that OPEC is shooting itself in the foot. not for what you say but on the fact the high prices are getting people to put money/time into looking for alternative sources. I think the high prices are going to drive a alternative fuel on the market far faster then if gas stayed at say $2/gallon

I just hope that OPEC has nothing to do with the alternative fuel.



edit: i forgot ot put in for the OP's question ehh.

I do think $3 was the magic number. people are now starting to look at alternatives.

with gas at $4 and very possibly hitting $5 this summer (then going down to $3.75-4 and stay there) it iwll really get people to do something. but the $3 amount i think really started it.

$3.00 was the magic number for me right after Hurricane Katrina. That is when I switched to a 35 mpg Saturn. 18 months after that I switched to a 65 mpg+ (average) Insight.

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If it costs Exxon $100 to buy a barrel of oil and they sell the distillates for $110, then 6 years later it costs them $200 to buy the barrel and they sell the distillates for $220, then nothing has changed. However, people will suddenly claim they are now making double the profit, which is unimaginable!?!?!?

Yet, they still maintain a 10% profit.

The $$ figure doesn't matter.

However, they could sell it at 210, which would pass the cost increase onto customers while maintaining their same profit. They purposefully went to increase their profit by a percentage based system...

I'm not saying they shouldn't ever increase their profits. But if the % has given them such a massive amount of wealth then it is obviously compounding the issue and they are turning a blind eye to it and a very open eye to the $$$ they can rake in.

I'm just saying, there is a big difference between "We are passing the costs onto the customer" and "We are passing the costs and additional money for us onto the customer". There is no way you can put 100% of the blame on the raw material in the second scenario, only the first.

brilliant business idea, as costs go up we will decrease our profit %.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If it costs Exxon $100 to buy a barrel of oil and they sell the distillates for $110, then 6 years later it costs them $200 to buy the barrel and they sell the distillates for $220, then nothing has changed. However, people will suddenly claim they are now making double the profit, which is unimaginable!?!?!?

Yet, they still maintain a 10% profit.

The $$ figure doesn't matter.

However, they could sell it at 210, which would pass the cost increase onto customers while maintaining their same profit. They purposefully went to increase their profit by a percentage based system...

I'm not saying they shouldn't ever increase their profits. But if the % has given them such a massive amount of wealth then it is obviously compounding the issue and they are turning a blind eye to it and a very open eye to the $$$ they can rake in.

I'm just saying, there is a big difference between "We are passing the costs onto the customer" and "We are passing the costs and additional money for us onto the customer".

like TallBill said earlier the mpg in todays cars is absolutely pathetic. The state of the art Model-T Ford of 100 years ago gets similar mpg as todays cars. It got 13-21 mpg and had to be hand cranked what's todays excuse?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: vi edit
Salary increases are done in % (for the most part)
Inflation is based on a %
Sales/Income tax is based on a %
Investments/rate of return are based on %

A % of profits is an objective number that you can use to evaluate performance from year to year.

Absolute dollars are not.

Ok, right, normal way of doing things. Are we saying it is impossible to pass an increased cost in raw materials to customers without also passing along an increased cost due to profit? I realize it might not be the standard way of doing things, but is this really a standard scenario? If we actually do get to a point where people can't afford to drive to work does the company itself feel they shoulder any of the blame while their profits continue to skyrocket?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If it costs Exxon $100 to buy a barrel of oil and they sell the distillates for $110, then 6 years later it costs them $200 to buy the barrel and they sell the distillates for $220, then nothing has changed. However, people will suddenly claim they are now making double the profit, which is unimaginable!?!?!?

Yet, they still maintain a 10% profit.

The $$ figure doesn't matter.

However, they could sell it at 210, which would pass the cost increase onto customers while maintaining their same profit. They purposefully went to increase their profit by a percentage based system...

I'm not saying they shouldn't ever increase their profits. But if the % has given them such a massive amount of wealth then it is obviously compounding the issue and they are turning a blind eye to it and a very open eye to the $$$ they can rake in.

I'm just saying, there is a big difference between "We are passing the costs onto the customer" and "We are passing the costs and additional money for us onto the customer".

like TallBill said earlier the mpg in todays cars is absolutely pathetic. The state of the art Model-T Ford of 100 years ago gets similar mpg as todays cars. It got 13-21 mpg and had to be hand cranked what's todays excuse?

I got 38-44mpg highway in my '86 MR2 when I drove it up from Florida...no reason new econoboxes shouldn't be getting at least that..

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: vi edit
Salary increases are done in % (for the most part)
Inflation is based on a %
Sales/Income tax is based on a %
Investments/rate of return are based on %

A % of profits is an objective number that you can use to evaluate performance from year to year.

Absolute dollars are not.

Ok, right, normal way of doing things. Are we saying it is impossible to pass an increased cost in raw materials to customers without also passing along an increased cost due to profit? I realize it might not be the standard way of doing things, but is this really a standard scenario? If we actually do get to a point where people can't afford to drive to work does the company itself feel they shoulder any of the blame while their profits continue to skyrocket?

As long as their profits are still high, I don't imagine they'd care..

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
brilliant business idea, as costs go up we will decrease our profit %.

Maybe it isn't smart business, but it would look incredible to the general public. The company shows it is willing to take a hit to help the country in a time of need. Instead of raking in RECORD PROFITS and claiming ignorance because nobody wants to touch the 10% number. If you lower your profits to 8% and still claim record profits, you at least shown you've taken a hit on both sides, your company has taken a hit (albeit still taking in massive profits) and the customer is taking a hit.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
How about this...everybody on the board kicks in $50 for R&D costs to develop a truly fuel efficient, inexpensive vehicle. 182,340 users x $50 each gives the developer about $9,117,000 to get the job done. That ought to be enough for some break through work to be put into a hybrid car right? Then we all buy one and stop bitching about gas prices, which never accomplished anything anyway. Who's in?

There already is a $10 million dollar prize competition for a 100+ mpg car. None of the major auto manufacturers are competing. Car companies need to stop selling 30 mpg cars as "high fuel efficiency" when they have the technology for 70+ And consumers need to learn to buy a smaller car.

yea sure
you can stick a tiny engine on a cycle frame and sure, you'll get ridiculous mileage. course if you get hit by a civic you are going to die.

That is BS. Look at the Insight, 4 star crash ratings and it can average 65 mpg mixed driving. If I push it I can do 100+ mpg on the open road. It's in the engineering, plain and simple.

 

[skace]

Look, I'm not saying they HAVE to lower their profit %s, but if we are in agreement that they are well aware that they could and choose not to then they just aren't passing along the cost of increase in raw materials. They are knowingly and willingly passing along the increased cost of their profits. And in doing so they've passively become part of the problem.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If it costs Exxon $100 to buy a barrel of oil and they sell the distillates for $110, then 6 years later it costs them $200 to buy the barrel and they sell the distillates for $220, then nothing has changed. However, people will suddenly claim they are now making double the profit, which is unimaginable!?!?!?

Yet, they still maintain a 10% profit.

The $$ figure doesn't matter.

However, they could sell it at 210, which would pass the cost increase onto customers while maintaining their same profit. They purposefully went to increase their profit by a percentage based system...

I'm not saying they shouldn't ever increase their profits. But if the % has given them such a massive amount of wealth then it is obviously compounding the issue and they are turning a blind eye to it and a very open eye to the $$$ they can rake in.

I'm just saying, there is a big difference between "We are passing the costs onto the customer" and "We are passing the costs and additional money for us onto the customer".

like TallBill said earlier the mpg in todays cars is absolutely pathetic. The state of the art Model-T Ford of 100 years ago gets similar mpg as todays cars. It got 13-21 mpg and had to be hand cranked what's todays excuse?

maybe the fact that today's cars are faster, safer, more reliable (though that is debatable) and far more conterbale then they were in th epast?

sure it can be better. but there has been no reason for them to try. now people WANT better fuel efficiant cars. i really do expect in the next 10 years a car that gets 70+mpg.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rike
Demand for gas is relatively inelastic and it has few readily available substitutes.

the first part of that statement is only true short run. we're already seeing that it's elastic long run as gas consumption is way down this year.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If it costs Exxon $100 to buy a barrel of oil and they sell the distillates for $110, then 6 years later it costs them $200 to buy the barrel and they sell the distillates for $220, then nothing has changed. However, people will suddenly claim they are now making double the profit, which is unimaginable!?!?!?

Yet, they still maintain a 10% profit.

The $$ figure doesn't matter.

However, they could sell it at 210, which would pass the cost increase onto customers while maintaining their same profit. They purposefully went to increase their profit by a percentage based system...

I'm not saying they shouldn't ever increase their profits. But if the % has given them such a massive amount of wealth then it is obviously compounding the issue and they are turning a blind eye to it and a very open eye to the $$$ they can rake in.

I'm just saying, there is a big difference between "We are passing the costs onto the customer" and "We are passing the costs and additional money for us onto the customer".

like TallBill said earlier the mpg in todays cars is absolutely pathetic. The state of the art Model-T Ford of 100 years ago gets similar mpg as todays cars. It got 13-21 mpg and had to be hand cranked what's todays excuse?

A 3500 pound Toyota sedan pulls 28MPG, runs a sub 7 second 0-60, and has a dizzying array of safety features.

We wanted bigger, faster, safer. Not smaller, lighter, slower, and more efficient. The economy you get out todays cars is pretty impressive once you compare it to the weights and options provided on cars 20 years ago.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not sure where you got your figures, but they're actually saying prices may go down this summer because people are driving less.

you're the first one i saw who said prices will go down. I highly doubt that. OPEC and oil companies will squeeze us for all they can while they still can.

Wow! The news people are listening to me!

from your linked article

Meanwhile, several U.S. senators urged the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit manipulation in petroleum markets.

"Record energy prices and industry profits are coming at a time when supply and demand suggest that prices should be significantly lower," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine.

Even though gasoline inventories hit a 15-year high on April 1, the EIA forecast record gasoline prices, citing expensive crude oil. The agency said crude should average $97 a barrel this summer, up $30 from last year.

demand for oil has been lower for a while now. Oil isnt being priced solely by supply and demand. Its the futures trading and speculation that's keeping the price of oil artificially inflated

 

[BigDH01]

I hope this encourages people to live closer to work. I'm about to live in a city with a dying downtown because major businesses are moving to sprawling suburban campuses instead of building a tall downtown. To me, that's disgusting. Americans are going to have to change their lifestyle. This means higher population densities, more public transportation, and an overall reduction of waste. I, for one, am all for it. I'd much rather see a tall and vibrant downtown than massive suburban sprawl that continues forever.

 

[Aharami]

sorry but I dont want to pay 600K for a 1000sq ft studio

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Aharami
sorry but I dont want to pay 600K for a 1000sq ft studio

You assume no increase in living supply.

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
How about this...everybody on the board kicks in $50 for R&D costs to develop a truly fuel efficient, inexpensive vehicle. 182,340 users x $50 each gives the developer about $9,117,000 to get the job done. That ought to be enough for some break through work to be put into a hybrid car right? Then we all buy one and stop bitching about gas prices, which never accomplished anything anyway. Who's in?

There already is a $10 million dollar prize competition for a 100+ mpg car. None of the major auto manufacturers are competing. Car companies need to stop selling 30 mpg cars as "high fuel efficiency" when they have the technology for 70+ And consumers need to learn to buy a smaller car.

You know, my first car was a well used 1976 Datsun F-10. That car in 1986 was getting 45-50 MPG. Fast forward 30 years, and even hybrids are barely getting that kind of mileage. Why?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


If it costs Exxon $100 to buy a barrel of oil and they sell the distillates for $110, then 6 years later it costs them $200 to buy the barrel and they sell the distillates for $220, then nothing has changed. However, people will suddenly claim they are now making double the profit, which is unimaginable!?!?!?

Yet, they still maintain a 10% profit.

The $$ figure doesn't matter.

that's just the refining side. refinery-only companies are already getting squeezed because the vertically integrated oil companies have started taking a bigger chunk of profits on the production side. typically the integrated oil companies pay a % to whoever the landowner is, be it a farmer or a nation-state. so on the production side their profit is equal to the cost of a barrel on the open market, minus the 1/8 to 1/6 royalty to the landowner, minus cost of production and shipment. well, cost of production and shipment is the same at $110 as it was at $30. so a well that is profitable at $30 a barrel is really profitable at $110 a barrel.

now, that isn't always the case. there are probably some nation states out there that run vertically integrated oil companies with little help from exxon, shell, chevron, bp, etc. and there are probably some that pay the oil companies a set amount to produce the oil and then sell it on the open market. but just about every well in the US works as i described above, and the US is still a major oil producing country.

because exxon and the other vertically integrated oil companies make so much money on the production side, they've actually started squeezing the refining side. they have a desire to keep profit margins the same because they can go on capitol hill and claim that their profits are only up because the dollar volume is up so high. it also puts the pinch on refining-only companies like valero and tesoro, who do have to buy oil at the market price.

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
If the gas does go up to $4.00 a gallon, I'm riding a bicycle to work permanently. No way in hell I'm paying $50.00 to fill up my Jetta. That'll be $200 a month just in gas.

when i worked my last job, i filled up 16 gallons every 4 days. thats what.. 5 times a month? @ 45 bucks/fillup, that was over $200.00/month.

My commute was 80 miles round trip. You have to go where the money is.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
How about this...everybody on the board kicks in $50 for R&D costs to develop a truly fuel efficient, inexpensive vehicle. 182,340 users x $50 each gives the developer about $9,117,000 to get the job done. That ought to be enough for some break through work to be put into a hybrid car right? Then we all buy one and stop bitching about gas prices, which never accomplished anything anyway. Who's in?

There already is a $10 million dollar prize competition for a 100+ mpg car. None of the major auto manufacturers are competing. Car companies need to stop selling 30 mpg cars as "high fuel efficiency" when they have the technology for 70+ And consumers need to learn to buy a smaller car.

You know, my first car was a well used 1976 Datsun F-10. That car in 1986 was getting 45-50 MPG. Fast forward 30 years, and even hybrids are barely getting that kind of mileage. Why?

Because consumers shifted to power, size, and safety. The accord went up 500 pounds and 50 HP and still gets better milage now than it did nearly 20 years ago.

2008 Accord Sedan:

Exterior
Length: 194.1 in. Width: 72.7 in.
Height: 58.1 in. Wheel Base: 110.2 in.
Curb Weight: 3289 lbs.
Interior
Front Head Room: 41.4 in. Front Hip Room: 56.6 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 58.2 in. Rear Head Room: 38.5 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 56.4 in. Rear Hip Room: 54.3 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.5 in. Rear Leg Room: 37.2 in.
Luggage Capacity: 14 cu. ft. Maximum Seating: 5

Performance
Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2.4 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4 Horsepower: 177 hp
Max Horsepower: 6500 rpm Torque: 161 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 4300 rpm Drive Type: FWD
Turning Circle: 37.7 ft.
Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 18.5 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Automatic: : 21 mpg / 31 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 388.5 mi. / 573.5 mi.

----------------------------------------------

1990 Accord Sedan

Length: 184.8 in. Width: 67.9 in.
Height: 54.7 in. Wheel Base: 107.1 in.
Curb Weight: 2857 lbs.
Interior
Front Head Room: 38.9 in. Front Hip Room: 52.4 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 54.8 in. Rear Head Room: 36.7 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 54.8 in. Rear Hip Room: 52.4 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.6 in. Rear Leg Room: 34.3 in.
Luggage Capacity: 14.4 cu. ft. Maximum Seating: 5

Performance
Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2.2 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4 Horsepower: 125 hp
Max Horsepower: 5200 rpm Torque: 137 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 4000 rpm Drive Type: FWD
Turning Circle: 36.1 ft.

Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 17 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 24 mpg / 30 mpg Automatic: : 22 mpg / 28 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 374 mi. / 476 mi. Manual: 408 mi. / 510 mi.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Aharami

demand for oil has been lower for a while now. Oil isnt being priced solely by supply and demand. Its the futures trading and speculation that's keeping the price of oil artificially inflated

demand of speculators is still demand.

Originally posted by: NL5
You know, my first car was a well used 1976 Datsun F-10. That car in 1986 was getting 45-50 MPG. Fast forward 30 years, and even hybrids are barely getting that kind of mileage. Why?

that datsun barely had room in it for you, must less you, three friends, and your luggage like a prius has. additionally, in that datsun you'd probably be dead running into a pole at 5 mph. further, the datsun had a smaller engine.

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
How about this...everybody on the board kicks in $50 for R&D costs to develop a truly fuel efficient, inexpensive vehicle. 182,340 users x $50 each gives the developer about $9,117,000 to get the job done. That ought to be enough for some break through work to be put into a hybrid car right? Then we all buy one and stop bitching about gas prices, which never accomplished anything anyway. Who's in?

There already is a $10 million dollar prize competition for a 100+ mpg car. None of the major auto manufacturers are competing. Car companies need to stop selling 30 mpg cars as "high fuel efficiency" when they have the technology for 70+ And consumers need to learn to buy a smaller car.

You know, my first car was a well used 1976 Datsun F-10. That car in 1986 was getting 45-50 MPG. Fast forward 30 years, and even hybrids are barely getting that kind of mileage. Why?

Because consumers shifted to power, size, and safety. The accord went up 500 pounds and 50 HP and still gets better milage now than it did nearly 20 years ago.

2008 Accord Sedan:

Exterior
Length: 194.1 in. Width: 72.7 in.
Height: 58.1 in. Wheel Base: 110.2 in.
Curb Weight: 3289 lbs.
Interior
Front Head Room: 41.4 in. Front Hip Room: 56.6 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 58.2 in. Rear Head Room: 38.5 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 56.4 in. Rear Hip Room: 54.3 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.5 in. Rear Leg Room: 37.2 in.
Luggage Capacity: 14 cu. ft. Maximum Seating: 5

Performance
Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2.4 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4 Horsepower: 177 hp
Max Horsepower: 6500 rpm Torque: 161 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 4300 rpm Drive Type: FWD
Turning Circle: 37.7 ft.
Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 18.5 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Automatic: : 21 mpg / 31 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 388.5 mi. / 573.5 mi.

----------------------------------------------

1990 Accord Sedan

Length: 184.8 in. Width: 67.9 in.
Height: 54.7 in. Wheel Base: 107.1 in.
Curb Weight: 2857 lbs.
Interior
Front Head Room: 38.9 in. Front Hip Room: 52.4 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 54.8 in. Rear Head Room: 36.7 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 54.8 in. Rear Hip Room: 52.4 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.6 in. Rear Leg Room: 34.3 in.
Luggage Capacity: 14.4 cu. ft. Maximum Seating: 5

Performance
Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2.2 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4 Horsepower: 125 hp
Max Horsepower: 5200 rpm Torque: 137 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 4000 rpm Drive Type: FWD
Turning Circle: 36.1 ft.

Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 17 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 24 mpg / 30 mpg Automatic: : 22 mpg / 28 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 374 mi. / 476 mi. Manual: 408 mi. / 510 mi.

Yes, and a 1976 Honda Accord got 45-50 Mpg.........

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NL5
Yes, and a 1976 Honda Accord got 45-50 Mpg.........

it had 68 hp and weighed 2000 lbs.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: NL5

Yes, and a 1976 Honda Accord got 45-50 Mpg.........

And had 68 HP and weighed around 2000 pounds.