How high can gas go?

[Capt Caveman]

Thankfully, I walk to work now. But the cost of goods will reflect the higher fuel costs.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 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.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: 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.........

And it only weighed 2000lbs and had only 68hp. You keep missing the point that consumers moved to power, size, and safety. The Accord also debuted at a time when there was gas rationing in this country.

 

[krunchykrome]

I think gas would have to peak at $5 a gallon before I actually start to consider alternatives.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yea, living in the city was so much fun, I remember playing soccer and street hockey in the middle of the street, running to the sidewalk every time a car came by. We had to clean our front yard every other day only to come by the next day to see beer bottles and other things thrown in it. Growing up, we had a homeless lady that liked to sleep on our front porch. We all knew her, but had no idea why she was there. Or the time some retard on his motorcycle tried to take our street corner too fast and slid face first into our front steps, shattering his bike all over the place. Then there is the obvious crime, living a block away from the soup kitchen and the projects. The only park within walking distance was a prime target for kidnappings.

Yea, living in the city is fucking grand, let's hope everyone has to go back there instead of having an amazing neighborhood with real yards to grow up in.

 

[ElFenix]

to put the 1976 honda accord in perspective, it was about the size of a current ford fiesta. which gets about 50 US mpg in the UK's extra-urban test. and no doubt the fiesta is the much nicer car.

the accord grew by 2.5 classes of car:

fiesta
focus
fusion
taurus (five hundred)

(mulally is right, ford's naming scheme of all f's was retarded)

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TrueBlueLS

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
well....much higher than $5 and the minimum wagers will not be able to afford to work. At $4+ I am going to talk to my boss about telecommuting a few days per week.

Exactly. I know a lot of minimum wagers where I live are high school students. It just makes me wonder what the companies will do once the kids quit because they have no money to gas up or maintain their car.

Pay higher wages or go out of business. Ain't the free market great!

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: 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.

Yea, living in the city was so much fun, I remember playing soccer and street hockey in the middle of the street, running to the sidewalk every time a car came by. We had to clean our front yard every other day only to come by the next day to see beer bottles and other things thrown in it. Growing up, we had a homeless lady that liked to sleep on our front porch. We all knew her, but had no idea why she was there. Or the time some retard on his motorcycle tried to take our street corner too fast and slid face first into our front steps, shattering his bike all over the place. Then there is the obvious crime, living a block away from the soup kitchen and the projects. The only park within walking distance was a prime target for kidnappings.

Yea, living in the city is fucking grand, let's hope everyone has to go back there instead of having an amazing neighborhood with real yards to grow up in.

Not everyone can have an amazing yard in suburbia. It simply isn't sustainable unless there is a revolution in this country with regards to mass transit. There are a few cities, like Chicago, where you can easily get to the city from suburbia, but many aren't like this. Have massive numbers of people in surburbia commuting all over the place simply isn't sustainable, energy-wise, in the long term. The long-term solution will mean better mass transit AND higher population densities.

BTW, I grew up in the burbs. I played in the street as this was the best place to bike and actually had enough room to hit long balls. I had to move off the street when cars came by. Our shed was broken into and my bike stolen. I witnessed many car accidents in the intersection leading into our neighborhood. My friend was almost run over by a car speeding through the street (a common occurence in our neighborhood). Yards do not a perfect community make. There will need to be a shift to urban living and we'll have to attempt to make these areas as clean and safe as possible. It's the sustainable path.

 

[IEC]

You think it's bad now? Just wait until China and India start pumping out cars by the MILLIONS. Oh wait...

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: 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.

but it's not actual demand by consumers. It's artificial demand

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: 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.........

And it only weighed 2000lbs and had only 68hp. You keep missing the point that consumers moved to power, size, and safety. The Accord also debuted at a time when there was gas rationing in this country.

You are missing the point. If "consumers" have moved to power, size, and safety, why is this forum filled with a bunch of people whining about gas prices? Consumers don't care about fuel economy, right?

 

[JS80]

WAR FOR OIL. Let's imperialize the middle east while they are still uncivilized!!

 

[JS80]

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?

Toyota, GM already spent billions. What makes you think $9 million will get us anywhere?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 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.

why don't you take a pay cut while the country is in a recession. it will look incredible to your coworkers :roll:

like the 2% profit margin cut will change anything.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: NL5

You are missing the point. If "consumers" have moved to power, size, and safety, why is this forum filled with a bunch of people whining about gas prices? Consumers don't care about fuel economy, right?

People bitching does not equate to consumer demand. Consumer demand is a shift or trend in sales. Until people put their money where there mouth is, manufacturers will continue to cater to what is selling. The difficult part is that sales trends and gas prices can move much faster than what a vehicle manf. is capable of predicting and react to. It takes years to produce a completly new vehicle design and engine format and get it rolled to production. With the way gas prices work you could see a double in price and then a pullback by the time a high enconomy vehicle hits the market.

For the last two decades the trend was for power, size, and comfort. We had HP wars for years. Not MPG wars. We were fortunate that technology allowed us to keep or improve economy along with power, but it's a diminishing return. There is only so much tuning/improving you can do with an inheriently inefficient design (ICE).

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 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.

are you going to magically grow land in the city?

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: NL5

You are missing the point. If "consumers" have moved to power, size, and safety, why is this forum filled with a bunch of people whining about gas prices? Consumers don't care about fuel economy, right?

People bitching does not equate to consumer demand. Consumer demand is a shift or trend in sales. Until people put their money where there mouth is, manufacturers will continue to cater to what is selling.

True enough. I think it is starting to equate though, so we should easily see 100+ mpg cars pretty soon I would think. If 1976 technology could hit 50 mpg, 2010 technology should at least come close to 100 mpg.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: JS80
why don't you take a pay cut while the country is in a recession. it will look incredible to your coworkers :roll:

like the 2% profit margin cut will change anything.

Your comment would make sense if I was making assloads of money off the backs of my coworkers. Hell I will tell you right now I'd feel a little guilty. And for the record, we've had to take paycuts without the benefit of reaping massive profits. Not to mention the people that no longer have jobs.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: TallBill
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.

could not agree more.
i see Chevy? commercials on tv, we have 8 models that get 30 mpg or more!
30 mpg is not good u morons. i had a mid 90's civic that got 40 mpg.

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: TallBill
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.

could not agree more.
i see Chevy? commercials on tv, we have 8 models that get 30 mpg or more!
30 mpg is not good u morons. i had a mid 90's civic that got 40 mpg.

By today's standards, 30 mpg is competitive. Sure, it doesnt compare to earlier automobiles gas mileage, like your older civic, but cars today are much bigger than they were in the 80's and 90's. And they keep getting bigger every year.

From a quick google search, a 1995 2 door Civic weighed 2231 lbs and today's 2008 civic weighs 2875 lbs.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: TallBill
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.

could not agree more.
i see Chevy? commercials on tv, we have 8 models that get 30 mpg or more!
30 mpg is not good u morons. i had a mid 90's civic that got 40 mpg.

By today's standards, 30 mpg is competitive. Sure, it doesnt compare to earlier automobiles gas mileage, like your older civic, but cars today are much bigger than they were in the 80's and 90's. And they keep getting bigger every year.

From a quick google search, a 1995 2 door Civic weighed 2231 lbs and today's 2008 civic weighs 2875 lbs.

not just bigger but safer. both for the driver and enviorment.

but yeah wish i still had my old 02 honda Accord. it was small but got great gas mileage heh

 

[TruePaige]

My '07 Saturn Ion Quad-Coupe gets 24/32 MPG.

It's pretty peppy too, and a safe car.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: TallBill
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.

could not agree more.
i see Chevy? commercials on tv, we have 8 models that get 30 mpg or more!
30 mpg is not good u morons. i had a mid 90's civic that got 40 mpg.

Yes, well the average consumer is a moron. We shouldn't be spending $20+ thousand on transportation anyways. Yes, I would probably buy a tiny little enclosed car that got 100 mpg if it was sub $10,000 and built to last. I just need to get from place to place. I don't care about style, acceleration, or anything else.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal

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?

I don't know about where you live, but around here it's like this:

Regular apartment costs $1200/month
Apartment 1 mile from a metro stop costs $1400/month
Apartment 1 block from a metro stop costs $1600/month

And riding a bike isn't really practical if you need to buy groceries or get to work in heavy rain/snow, or if you need to support clients 30 miles away.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: 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.

are you going to magically grow land in the city?

Why do I need to grow land? There are plenty of 10 story apartment and condo buildings in my future downtown. Those buildings can grow up and not out.

I think in the distant future, you'll see a lot more buildings represent something like the Hancock Building. You can live in the upper floors, work in the middle floors, and shop on the ground floors. There's even a Best Buy going in. Imagine only having to take an elevator to Best Buy.

I'm moving to an apartment building in a downtown area. This building is connected to nearly all the other downtown buildings via a skywalk. This means, at night, I can walk from my apartment to go buy grocery items, alcohol, whatever, without ever stepping foot outside or getting into a car. I'm also connected to the civic center so I never have to get into a car and deal with traffic when I want to go see a basketball or hockey game. I also live next to the center of nightlife so I never have to get into a car to go to the bar or clubs. Not to mention the many restaurants well within walking distance. There's a gym attached to the skywalk, and an indoor hot tub, sauna, and small fitness center in the basement. I may not have a yard, but I live about 2 blocks from a river and corresponding parks. Plenty of green space.

As populations continue to increase and supplies of traditional energy sources continue to decrease, more people will *want* to live in conditions like this. My fiance and I currently have two cars, and now we can eliminate one as I will no longer have to drive. This saves me gas money, insurance, registration, and maintenance (I already own the car, so no car payment). Living in communal conditions also makes it more affordable to implement green energy technologies. The investment can be shared by all parties and makes use of economy of scale. I see more people seeking out these conditions in the future until the price of energy decreases and/or the cost of turning one's home green with geo and solar technology drops.

Of course, suburbanization also becomes economically unfeasible as the value of crops continue to increase. In the past, creating giant new housing additions was relatively cheap and just required buying up largely flat farmland. Now that corn stands at over $6/bushel, this farmland is no longer cheap to buy. Sprawl can't go on forever, and that population has to go somewhere. I say up.