Another Republican Defeat - No Drilling in Alaska

Remove all ads!

Felinoid and Aldeth : I was making this comment in response to Hacken's argument that one SUV could replace two small cars. Now, what you say just supports my point of wiew Truth is, most families have more than one car because both parents work, not because the family is too big so they'd not fit in a single car.

Well, I would vote for an energy bill containing both provisions to open ANWR, and laws requiring better car mileage. Did the administration put such a bill forward? No. Moreover, several years ago they scraped planned standards to increase fuel eficiency in cars/SUVs. The Republicans in Congress actively resist such rules:

(this was in May 2005)

So then, I hardly think both sides merit equal amount of spit.

 

So who has the moral high-ground?

Me, in a family who does get by with one SUV...(it can be done)

or you (generic "you") with your two tin can economy cars so you and your significant other can both drive alone to work?

If you want to talk about waste and needed change in life styles...dump that second car and learn to carpool, bus or bike-it and leave me alone with the car I choose to drive.

Anyone see a glass house?


@Khaavern The Escape / Taurus comparison is valid and I'll stand by it...similar curb weights, price range, engine/drivetrain and passenger space. You also have to be careful with the EPA averages for trucks because it also lumps in heavy trucks (3/4 to to 1 ton) which significantly distort the average.

But I think this automotive tangent might be worthy of a new topic if people want to pursue it.

 

Well, you can now. A three person family. Mine. We made a conscious decision to try and get by with one car for financial and environmental reasons. So I catch the bus to work. Sometimes its inconvenient, but I'm saving loads of money, and not wasting loads of petrol by driving my one body to work and back every day.

 

Fair play to you Harbs. I'm guessing the public transport is miles better in New Zealand than it is in Britain. You wouldn't find me on one our buses!

 

The public transit here in Arizona is awful...I just manage to pull it off because I'm so mean and stubborn.

@HB:

 

I hope you are certainly not referring to me, since my "significant other" doesn't have to drive to work - she is a stay at home mom, atm. She puts about 200 miles a month on our second car, a Honda. As for me I drive a bit more, and spend about $15.00 US dollars a week on gas, about 7 gallons of fuel for my Eclipse.

 

Hey...Tal's away...let's start a thread where we post pics of our cars.

 

And if you start promoting the small cars or even diesel, you can double the mpg. (I get just over 40, A diesel can get arround 55)

Question.
There was a price of fuel thread a while back, did most people use unleaded as a basis? The price of Diesel in the UK is slightly higher than unleaded, but I found in New Zealand that it was only about 60% of the cost - and the better mpg.

 

I think Diesel is somewhat cheaper then regular in the US. But you need a special engine to run on it. Also, problem with Diesel used to be polution, but I think that's been fixed.

The average mileage on trucks I cited earlier splits like this: 17 mpg for pickups, 18 mpg for SUVs and 20 mpg for minivans. Also, I did not suggest that people should be forbidden to use SUVs. That would be foolish. What I suggested was increased fuel efficiency standards. After all, the SUV Hacken mentioned gets something like 23 mpg, so it' s possible

 

Yeah, diesel is cheaper here in the states, but it's not 60% the price of unleaded. If you're paying something like $2.20 per gallon for unleaded, you're likely paying about $2.00 per gallon for diesel. So it's like 90% the price of unleaded. Also, as khaavern rightly points out, your engine has to be able to take diesel fuel to be able to run off of it, and the vast majority of cars, trucks, SUVs and minivans don't have that capability (big trucks being used for deliveries or cross-country transport excepted of course).

OK, while I admit that it is possible to get by with fewer than two cars, I stand by my statement that it is not a practical solution for 90% of couples, unless they live in a major city with excellent public transportation options. There is no way for me to take public transportation to work, unless I want to walk 3 miles from the train station to my workplace, and then another 3 miles back again at the end of the work day. No thanks. Similarly, my wife needs a car to get to her workplace. Even in the case of a stay-at-home mom, we'd still need two cars, because I'd still need to get to work, and I wouldn't want my wife "stranded" at home. She needs to be able to leave the house in the case of an emergency, or just get out of the house for mental health reasons every once in a while.

MOST couples have both members working.
MOST couples do not work at the same place.
MOST couples do not live in an area where they have conveniently located public transportaion relative to where they live and where they work.
MOST couples want the stay-at-home member to have the ability to leave the house during the day. Therefore:
MOST couples do not view one vehicle as a practical solution.

 

Fuel pricing where I am is as follows:

Regular unleaded gasoline (87 octane) - $2.18 USD
Special unleaded gasonline (89 octane) - $2.28
Supreme unleaded gasoline (91 octane) - $2.38
Diesel fuel - $2.43

Around here, diesel is the most expensive but that could be due to the nearby California market. The higher particulate emissions of diesel fuel is only solved by "reformulating" during the refining process which to my knowledge is currently only mandated in California...which could be the cause of diesel being more expensive there and here in Arizona (as we get most of our fuel supply from there).

 

This is somewhat , but I have to ask if anyone really knows which gas is most economical taking fuel efficiency into account. To my knowledge, the higher octane gases cost more, but you also get a higher mpg rating when you use the higher octane gas. Does the increase in mpg offset the increased cost? The few cars that run on diesel get significantly higher mpg than cars that run on unleaded, so it seems like even in case like Hack's, the math might work out in your favor. (Say you get 40 mpg with unleaded, but 55 mpg with diesel.)

 

Diesel fuel has about 20,000 more BTU's per gallon than gasoline...about 20% higher in energy density. Therefore, to obtain the same level of "go" it takes more gasoline than diesel fuel. Also a diesel engine is able to idle at significantly lower rpm's equaling lower fuel consumption while sitting. That's why those big 18 wheeler rigs can idle away all night while the driver sleeps...it's literally sipping at the fuel. All things being equal, the fuel savings on a diesel vs. gasoline engine are significant and would more than pay for a higher cost fuel and the initial investment in the higher cost diesel engine. You would also want to factor in that regular service on a diesel engine is usually more costly...but long term life expectancy is probably greater...some of those old Mercedes diesels can't be killed.

As far as the relative grades of gasoline and economy...I don't think you'd ever see enough of a boost in mileage to offset the higher price with 91 octane...but the better performance and smoother running should make it worth your while. And don't believe the lies about the "mid-grades"...there's really no such thing, just a blend at the pump of regular and super. I don't think I've ever seen anyone test to actually make sure the blend is properly done to insure the advertised octane...so you could be getting anything.

[edit]-I'm not doing a very good job moderating this topic to keep it on track, am I? If y'all want to keep talking about fuels and cars...somebody start a new topic. Be happy to join you there.

 

Thank God I'm Amish. Time to go feed the horses...

 

My Eclipse is a 1999 RS. I did not consider the very sweet GTS because of its fuel economy. Really. My little 4 banger may not be as fast, but it does just fine with the working five-speed and the way in which the front-end is lowered to the road. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, BTA.

 

In 2000 the engines changed a bit. In 1999 there was no 6 cyl available; only the standard 4 and the 4 turbo. The turbo used a bit more fuel than that of the standard. Nevertheless, I average about 30, which makes me very happy. From what I can tell the GTS is rated at 20/29, so you are at the high-end of fuel economy also.

[ December 25, 2005, 01:14: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]