Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The end of the SUV or D%%N that cost a lot to drive!!

Car dealerships are starting to refuse SUV tradeins:Here is a link

 If that isnt bad enough now price per barrel is estimated to go up to $200 a barrel in the very near future:

 

LINK

Interesting future we are faced with isnt it?

 

 

 

 

What is your physical limit?

«1

Comments

  • unconformedunconformed Member Posts: 700

    i say the US starts a war for oil. a real one this time-

    or build 4 refineries in the US and drill whereever the fuck we can.

    this shit is designed. the question is by who? both parties, err, i mean ideals have their benefit of oils rise.

     

    chips, dips chains & whips.

  • daeandordaeandor Member UncommonPosts: 2,695

    If gas prices are forcing you to trade in your Lexus, then you made a poor buying decision when you signed that deal.  You probably should have been buying a car that cost about $6000 less.  Math...  1500 miles per month, 17 mi / gal car vs. 28 mi / gal car at 3.5 $ / gal, comes to about $1450 / year, average car loan 4 years, therefore for $6k less you could afford your gas.  Or, you could have just bought a car that had decent gas mileage to begin with and saved another few bucks.

     

    My Saab 9-3 SportCombi (station wagon to you 60's and 70's types) gets 28 city and a comfy 35 highway, fits my family, and is more versatile, safe, and fun than most of the lame "luxury SUVs" in existence today.  About twice a month I genuinely have a need for a truck, and that does bug me though.

  • OpticaleyeOpticaleye Member Posts: 498

    If you have a need for a truck get a trailer hitch.Buy a small trailer for say 400 bucks or so and you have a truck.

    I find it ironic that the very people who chose the "luxury Suv" because they could afford it cant afford to drive them now.

    If gas prices keep going the way they are im converting my 95 jeep to biodiesel.

    What is your physical limit?

  • Eh, it's just supply and demand rearing it's ugly head. I doubt too many people thought that far forward when they bought their SUVs. It wasn't the sales trend at the time. The last big trend was safety, all the safe vehicles sold like hotcakes. Now of course it's fuel efficiency, although I don't think that 'trend' will ever leave us again.

  • unconformedunconformed Member Posts: 700

    i cant imagine using a trailer hitch here in nyc. but i drive a 4 dr sedan these days, so what do i know?

    I do remember my last lease ( love them leases, heres a tip dont buy a used leased vehicle), was a 4dr mid sized suv. it was amazing cool to have it when my son was born and we lived in san diego. packed that fucker and took off like tourists lotsa times. I now have 2 kids and lease is up next year... i want a bigger vehicle than what i currently have. by than i guess hybrids will be the norm, at least.

    or, perhaps oil is on its tipping point for the next new tech breakthrough? and the big wigs are allowing this price to drive like this. to take the money and run...need ....more.....CaPiTaL!@! 

    I suppose I can only hope for a change like this(damn you obama) so the argument of how much we will get hit with gas prices and the new carbon tax thats on its way globally... can be over.

    chips, dips chains & whips.

  • VampirVampir Member Posts: 4,239

    I save money by riding a motorcycle and get around 60 miles to the gallon and go as fast as i want.

    image

    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.

  • DailyBuzzDailyBuzz Member Posts: 2,306

    I say bring it on. I hope gas prices go up to $8 per gallon. The era of apathy needs to end. The only way to convince people that they need to change their lifestyle is by taking shots at their pocket. Maybe once people start using mass transit the oil companies will see the trend and start shoveling money into alternatives sources. It's too bad that we couldn't be bothered to see the signs in 1973. Some did understand the principles, so why are we still fighting this battle 30 years later? Is it pure laziness? We are very resourceful people who have every opportunity to create changes to benefit us greatly. We simply have not been adversely affected enough to stir our motivation. Personally, I think $8 per gallon would be just the motivation we need.

  • VampirVampir Member Posts: 4,239

    yes because a sudden end to the industry of petroleum based fuels would be such a good thing economically.

    because you know there aren't a lot of people employed at gas stations, lube shops, mechanics, car dealerships, oil refinement, delivery services for all of such, places like autozone.

    A sudden transition off gas would be economic suicide for the united states and a lot of other countries.

    image

    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.

  • unconformedunconformed Member Posts: 700

    Bring it down! Bring it down! Bring it down!

    the U.S that is.

    If left unchecked, global climate alarmism can kill just as many as say the apocalypse of the new jesuits. assuming science has calculated the melting water principle correct.

    hey heres an idea, how bout we equal out the rising seas by first removing all chinese cargo ships from the waters of the world?

     

     

     

    chips, dips chains & whips.

  • DailyBuzzDailyBuzz Member Posts: 2,306

    Originally posted by Vampir


    yes because a sudden end to the industry of petroleum based fuels would be such a good thing economically.
    because you know there aren't a lot of people employed at gas stations, lube shops, mechanics, car dealerships, oil refinement, delivery services for all of such, places like autozone.
    A sudden transition off gas would be economic suicide for the united states and a lot of other countries.
    There will never be an end to petroleum based fuels, even at $8 per gallon. The fact is that China and India's demand is growing exponentially, and America seems hell bent on fucking around in the middle east.

    Yes, rising fuel costs seriously impact the economy. The reason for this is because there are limited opportunities in alternative industries. Let's say legislation was passed to ensure that 20% of new automobiles ran off of electric/solar by 2012. How many jobs do you think would be created in these industries in only a few months? Transition periods are tough. I wish we had started the process back in the 70's, then it wouldn't be so imperative at this point in time. We may have even saved ourselves a couple of wars and thousands of lives in the process.

    Personal transportation will never go away. The jobs you listed above will always be in demand. They may even receive training on various types of equipment which could potentially increase their pay. We are at a crossroads. We absolutely cannot afford to continue on the path we are on. Carter said this in '77 and nobody listened. Now look where we are, thousands of lives lost and oil at $120 a barrel.

  • VampirVampir Member Posts: 4,239

    dailybuzz.

    the only realistic technology at the moment to replace gasoline based industry is hyrdrogen.

    Electric would actually create more of a demand for oil, coal, etc because we would use a shit load of power to charge our cars.

    the Tessla the most advanced electric at the moment according to the manufacturer says it costs as much as cell phone to charge(i highly doubt that and i realisticly would say its like running an electric stove for 24 hours).

    The point being if everyone had one then it would use way too much fossil fuels to solve the problem, of fuel. Co2 and hydrocarben in the environment it doesn't add ot at all.

    Hydrogen on the other hand is an entirely new technology that would be a hellacious transition at best.

    because no one understands exactly how it works, except for the people who make it..

    and of those who do understand it who aren't involved in devlopment servicing them would be something entirely different.

    i think the change should happen extremely gradually over 10-20 years.

    To give time for the best current auto mechanics to find there nich (classics and antiques have always been somewhat of an industry), and the rest to acclimate and find new jobs.

    Anything sooner would be retarded IMO.

    image

    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.

  • HYPERI0NHYPERI0N Member Posts: 3,515

    Originally posted by Vampir


    yes because a sudden end to the industry of petroleum based fuels would be such a good thing economically.
    because you know there aren't a lot of people employed at gas stations, lube shops, mechanics, car dealerships, oil refinement, delivery services for all of such, places like autozone.
    A sudden transition off gas would be economic suicide for the united states and a lot of other countries.
    More than that will be affected as petroleum by-products are used to make other things such as plastic's for example.

    Anyway here is a quote from the article.


    At first gas mileage was a secondary issue - we wanted something bigger and safer for the baby," said Tivadar, an operations manager in Murrieta, Calif. "But the gas issue becomes more and more important as the price goes up. It's already $3.79 here."




    Here in the UK gas prices are around £ 1.14 [risen by 0.24 in last 2 months] that works out to about $2.30 a Litre. So i think your still getting off easy price wise.

     

    Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981

  • SamuraiswordSamuraisword Member Posts: 2,111

    I am gald that people who drive SUVs and Hummers are losing money on their trade ins, serves them right for being so stupid and selfish. It's no secret that everyone should be driving cars that get good gas mileage. I learned that from the odd/even gas rationing days during the Carter administration and choosing a car which gets good gas mileage is a no brainer unless you are a selfish prick.

    American soldiers are dying in Iraq in part since the US has a strategic interest in that region because of oil. Our demand for oil is obscene because of people who insist on being stylish with their SUVs and Hummers. Every SUV owner should feel somewhat responsible  for American soldiers dying over there.

    image

  • VhayneVhayne Member UncommonPosts: 632

    I just wanted to add something to the guys here knocking SUV owners.  Not everyone has a choice.....

    Actually I despise SUV's.  I remember back in the 90's when we had all these cool sports cars, that were all being replaced with these freaking truck-suvs.  It really pissed me off, as I don't like trucks.  I swore never to purchase an SUV. 

    But then I had 3 kids back to back.  Nature does that sometimes.  And we had to have some way to accomodate 3 carseats and 2 adults, plus room for other crap.  I'm only 30, and there's no way in hell I'm going to buy a mini-van at this age lol.  Call it stubborn, I don't know.  But I chose the GMC Acadia.  Because it could accomodate my needs. 

    I still hate it however.  I'd much rather drive something alot smaller.  But in my situation, it was either that, or a freaking mini-van. 

  • DailyBuzzDailyBuzz Member Posts: 2,306
    Originally posted by Vampir

    dailybuzz.

    the only realistic technology at the moment to replace gasoline based industry is hyrdrogen.

    I'm not talking about a total replacement of petroleum energy, and if I were I certainly wouldn't be suggesting hydrogen as the substitute. I am talking about supplementing with electric and solar. Just as carpooling, mass transit, and high efficiency vehicles are conservation.

    Electric would actually create more of a demand for oil, coal, etc because we would use a shit load of power to charge our cars.

    the Tessla the most advanced electric at the moment according to the manufacturer says it costs as much as cell phone to charge(i highly doubt that and i realisticly would say its like running an electric stove for 24 hours).

    As tempted as I am to put stock into your opinion of "highly doubt", I think I'll pass on your determination and leave the particulars to the experts. Manufacturer's in no way compare the costs of charging cell phones and car batteries. They only state that it costs roughly 1 penny per mile (with stipulations for off-peak rates with time of use meter) to drive a Tesla.

    The point being if everyone had one then it would use way too much fossil fuels to solve the problem, of fuel. Co2 and hydrocarben in the environment it doesn't add ot at all.

    Well, this thread is about transportation fuel. I would like to see alternatives applied to all energy sources, but that would be for another thread.

    Hydrogen on the other hand is an entirely new technology that would be a hellacious transition at best.

    because no one understands exactly how it works, except for the people who make it..

    and of those who do understand it who aren't involved in devlopment servicing them would be something entirely different.

    Absolutely. Continue research to perfect the science. Just because we already have alternatives ready to be introduced, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to forge ahead, looking for even more efficient alternatives.

    i think the change should happen extremely gradually over 10-20 years.

    That's what Jimmy Carter thought too. Unfortunately, the crisis at the time didn't impact people enough for them to be concerned. At least not concerned enough to contact congress.

    You seemed a bit shocked by the figure $8 per gallon. How much do you think petroleum fuel is going to cost in 2023 if we continue at our current rate of use? I think it would be foolish to find out. We heard the warnings in '77 of what happens if we continue to hesitate. Now it has come to pass and what do you think is the right thing to do? Continue to hesitate? No thanks.

    To give time for the best current auto mechanics to find there nich (classics and antiques have always been somewhat of an industry), and the rest to acclimate and find new jobs.

    Anything sooner would be retarded IMO.

    10-20 years huh. I wonder how many more conflicts in the middle east we can fit into that schedule.

     

  • DailyBuzzDailyBuzz Member Posts: 2,306

    Originally posted by Vhayne


    I just wanted to add something to the guys here knocking SUV owners.  Not everyone has a choice.....
    Actually I despise SUV's.  I remember back in the 90's when we had all these cool sports cars, that were all being replaced with these freaking truck-suvs.  It really pissed me off, as I don't like trucks.  I swore never to purchase an SUV. 
    But then I had 3 kids back to back.  Nature does that sometimes.  And we had to have some way to accomodate 3 carseats and 2 adults, plus room for other crap.  I'm only 30, and there's no way in hell I'm going to buy a mini-van at this age lol.  Call it stubborn, I don't know.  But I chose the GMC Acadia.  Because it could accomodate my needs. 
    I still hate it however.  I'd much rather drive something alot smaller.  But in my situation, it was either that, or a freaking mini-van. 
    First off, congratulations x3.

    I don't blame people for purchasing the transportation they need to provide for their family. I feel sympathetic that alternatives haven't been offered to you and have forced you into a position of paying extremely high fuel costs. Understand that there are alternatives anyway. You can drop the kids off at daycare and then park and take a bus or a train into work. If that doesn't work for you, you can carpool. In some cases, employees could do much of their work from home. There are many ways to conserve, it just takes a concerted effort. EFFORT being the key word.

    The folks I take issue with are the people who are so self-absorbed that they think the world is theirs to abuse as they see fit. These people affect all of us and should be paying a very high price for the impact they have. How much is your future worth?

  • CleffyIICleffyII Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 3,440

    I think we should blame the true culprits here.  Hippies.  Everytime a corporation would try to do something in order to create change, the hippies were there to protest it down.

    Also Mass Transit isn't as much a possibility in the US.  Although it would help people get more fit.  We have some very large and vast expanses.  Even our cities are built out not up. 

    image

  • RajaiRajai Member UncommonPosts: 331

    "We could produce more barrels of oil to lower the costs of gasoline, it's just not in our best interests"

    Trump 2016

  • HYPERI0NHYPERI0N Member Posts: 3,515

    Originally posted by Vhayne


    I just wanted to add something to the guys here knocking SUV owners.  Not everyone has a choice.....
    Actually I despise SUV's.  I remember back in the 90's when we had all these cool sports cars, that were all being replaced with these freaking truck-suvs.  It really pissed me off, as I don't like trucks.  I swore never to purchase an SUV. 
    But then I had 3 kids back to back.  Nature does that sometimes.  And we had to have some way to accomodate 3 carseats and 2 adults, plus room for other crap.  I'm only 30, and there's no way in hell I'm going to buy a mini-van at this age lol.  Call it stubborn, I don't know.  But I chose the GMC Acadia.  Because it could accomodate my needs. 
    I still hate it however.  I'd much rather drive something alot smaller.  But in my situation, it was either that, or a freaking mini-van. 
    I will just say that we in the UK have multiple children too and we are not forced to buy a big SUV to transport them. Thats why we have what are known as family cars, 7 seater cars with big bootspace and is economical on fuel needs to.

     

    Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981

  • TerranahTerranah Member UncommonPosts: 3,575

    My SUV, an Acura MDX, is a clean air emissions vehicle that gets 17 mpg in city and 23 mpg oh hwy, which I think is comparable to some trucks and sports cars.    So maybe we shouldn't knock the type of vehicle, but rather cars with poor gas mileage.

     

    In college I drove a Geo Metro and got 40 mpg.  It was a great commuter car.  But 3 years ago someone who was talking on their cellphone collided into the back of my wife's SUV, which in turn slammed her into the cement median divide.  Her car was crushed like an accordion.  But her passenger compartment was remarkably preserved.  The only downside was the force of the impact was so strong the head rest bent back and the back of the front seat broke and went back.  She had her seat belt on but she was still tossed around inside the car, partially restrained.

     

    Luckily she survived, although she did have a head injury.  Luckily it was only a minor one.  For instance, since the accident she has trouble spelling and multitasking.  Otherwise she is okay though, thank God.  Had she been in a little Geo Metro like I used to drive, she would be dead probably.

     

    So I don't mind paying the 4 bucks per gallon.  For me, with my wife still with me, I will pay the 4 bucks and not even blink.  When I look at my wife and I love her so much...that 4 bucks a gallon is a bargain.

  • SamuraiswordSamuraisword Member Posts: 2,111

    Originally posted by Terranah


    My SUV, an Acura MDX, is a clean air emissions vehicle that gets 17 mpg in city and 23 mpg oh hwy, which I think is comparable to some trucks and sports cars.    So maybe we shouldn't knock the type of vehicle, but rather cars with poor gas mileage.
     
    In college I drove a Geo Metro and got 40 mpg.  It was a great commuter car.  But 3 years ago someone who was talking on their cellphone collided into the back of my wife's SUV, which in turn slammed her into the cement median divide.  Her car was crushed like an accordion.  But her passenger compartment was remarkably preserved.  The only downside was the force of the impact was so strong the head rest bent back and the back of the front seat broke and went back.  She had her seat belt on but she was still tossed around inside the car, partially restrained.
     
    Luckily she survived, although she did have a head injury.  Luckily it was only a minor one.  For instance, since the accident she has trouble spelling and multitasking.  Otherwise she is okay though, thank God.  Had she been in a little Geo Metro like I used to drive, she would be dead probably.
     
    So I don't mind paying the 4 bucks per gallon.  For me, with my wife still with me, I will pay the 4 bucks and not even blink.  When I look at my wife and I love her so much...that 4 bucks a gallon is a bargain.
    The problem is that your willing to spend 4 bucks a gallon to drive a SUV is forcing others to spend 4 bucks a gallon that drive economy cars and the overall demand from other SUV drivers such as yourself  is driving the price of gasoline even higher. 17mpg city and 23 mpg hwy is a horrible gas rating. 

    The Geo Metro was a good choice. The problem with safety as you mentioned would not exist if everyone drove smaller cars. So who is gonna blink first in order to make that happen? In the UK, like the previous poster mentioned, they have no problem driving smaller vehicles with good gas mileage ratings that still can accommodate large families.

    image

  • Dis_OrdurDis_Ordur Member Posts: 1,501

    Originally posted by DailyBuzz


    I say bring it on. I hope gas prices go up to $8 per gallon. The era of apathy needs to end. The only way to convince people that they need to change their lifestyle is by taking shots at their pocket. Maybe once people start using mass transit the oil companies will see the trend and start shoveling money into alternatives sources. It's too bad that we couldn't be bothered to see the signs in 1973. Some did understand the principles, so why are we still fighting this battle 30 years later? Is it pure laziness? We are very resourceful people who have every opportunity to create changes to benefit us greatly. We simply have not been adversely affected enough to stir our motivation. Personally, I think $8 per gallon would be just the motivation we need.
    Nice post, I am going to take a guess and say you share a lot of Thomas Friedman's views on global economy and energy.

    I too am rooting for a severe oil crisis.  We all know $200/barrel oil is less than 1 year away, and people are going to have to make some drastic changes.  Fine with me, it is time we free oursleves of our energy shackles.

    There is an upside to this current situation..  With oil being so expensive, for the first time ever it is now feasible to explore and develop energy alternatives.  No one has the motivation or initiative to replace oil when it was less than $20.00 a barrel.  There are billions upon billions to be made off of alternative energies, and the US free market will be the first to revolutionize transportation, home energy and commercial energy. 

    The State of Montana can already produce $55.00/barrel SFC (synthetic fuel from coal).  This www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php article states that they have always been able to do this, but it was cost-prohibitive at anything less than $35.00/barrel. 

    There is a positive side to all of this, we will all witness the energy revolution within the next 5-10 years, it is coming for sure!

    image

  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356

    meh, don't worry about the rising cost of gasoline and food. I'm sure our politicians have a plan to save us....

     

  • Tuor7Tuor7 Member RarePosts: 982

    Any of you guys who think that we can make changes now that will save us from the impending results of the oil situation are whistling in the graveyard: it's too late for that. Way, way too late.

    Yeah, as another poster said, if we'd done something in 1973, or even in 1979, it would be different, but we didn't. "Not in *my* backyard" we said to nuke plants, for example. Now we face chronic energy shortages which are leading to rapidly rising costs for basic goods and staple foods, the dollar is devaluating in both relative and absolute terms, and we are tremendously in debt.

    So, now the chickens are coming home to roost, and people will be pointing fingers and running around frantically thinking that they can do something to stop what's coming. It's sort of sad, really -- pathetic. But I guess nothing lasts forever, and we had our time in the sun, but that time is drawing to a close.

    Oh, and if any of you think Obama, Clinton, or McCain are going to "save" us from this, you're completely delusional, IMO. But believe what you want: unlike what many of the Baby Boomers think, just believing something doesn't make it true.

  • Dis_OrdurDis_Ordur Member Posts: 1,501

    Originally posted by Tuor7


    Any of you guys who think that we can make changes now that will save us from the impending results of the oil situation are whistling in the graveyard: it's too late for that. Way, way too late.
    Yeah, as another poster said, if we'd done something in 1973, or even in 1979, it would be different, but we didn't. "Not in *my* backyard" we said to nuke plants, for example. Now we face chronic energy shortages which are leading to rapidly rising costs for basic goods and staple foods, the dollar is devaluating in both relative and absolute terms, and we are tremendously in debt.
    So, now the chickens are coming home to roost, and people will be pointing fingers and running around frantically thinking that they can do something to stop what's coming. It's sort of sad, really -- pathetic. But I guess nothing lasts forever, and we had our time in the sun, but that time is drawing to a close.
    Oh, and if any of you think Obama, Clinton, or McCain are going to "save" us from this, you're completely delusional, IMO. But believe what you want: unlike what many of the Baby Boomers think, just believing something doesn't make it true.

    Jeesh, what a grim outlook.  By your rationale, I should start preparing for a choas state where militias and rogues armies will control the land and everyman will fight for their own resources.  Is that right?

    We have been in worse positions before.  The crisis in the 70's was bad, and the 30's were even worse.  Could you imagine going through this economy in a countrywide drought like in the depression era?

    I agree that no politician will save us, hell, they will probably worsen the situation.  The market will come to the rescue, it always does.  Think back to the 70's oil crisis, stagflation and the advent of the internet and information age.  All of this was cured by free market adjustments that responded to problems by fixing them for a profit.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.