Author Topic: How high are $$$ now (Read 7440 times)

uvwpvW · « **Reply #60 on:** April 22, 2006, 05:28:14 PM »

I think this is a unique cultural problem for America. In Europe and Asia cars have great mileage even if they have powerful engines. Take the BMW M3 for instance: 343 bhp and 365 Nm, but still it gets 33.6 mpg. And that's a gasoline engine.

J_A_B · « **Reply #61 on:** April 22, 2006, 05:45:45 PM »

Beet1e--Your Audi is a LOT lighter than my Buick after all--1545 kg empty compared to the Buick's 1910 kg.

Interestingly enough, though, your Audi weighs virtually the same as my previous car (a '90 Cadillac Sedan DeVille), but the Audi gets nearly twice the fuel mileage and performs as well or better, too. I don't remember exactly what the Cadillac's empty weight was, but it was definately under 1600 kg (it was 34XX pounds, with the XX being digits I don't remember).

I really liked that Cadillac, and it's interesting to know that there's no reason it couldn't have been a 40 MPG vehicle.

Of course, starting in the early '90's, Cadillac took an entirely different design direction and began bloating up the weight of their cars a little more every year for little or no return in interior space. Unsurprisingly, their sales dropped like a rock. GM is so stupid.

J_A_B

J_A_B · « **Reply #62 on:** April 22, 2006, 06:02:09 PM »

"Take the BMW M3 for instance: 343 bhp and 365 Nm, but still it gets 33.6 mpg."

I think your source mixed up kilometers with miles. According to This site the M3 gets 24 MPG on the highway, which converts into exactly 33.6 kilometers.

J_A_B

uvwpvW · « **Reply #63 on:** April 22, 2006, 06:42:26 PM »

Could be. I used this source:

http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/winners/3_4.html

"But there is more to this M engine, which was named International Engine of the Year 2001, than just speed and raw power. 343bhp and 365Nm is impressive, but look beyond these numbers to find a wealth of technology. Witness the use of double VANOS variable valve timing, graphite-coated aluminium pistons and a bespoke engine management system, equipped with two 32bit microprocessors that can perform 25 million calculations a second. It also has anti-friction valve-drive followers with 30 per cent less mass than comparable cup tappets. Such technical know-how from the talented men at Munich helps the M3 record fuel consumption figures of 8.5L/100km (33.6mpg) on the EC extra-urban cycle."

J_A_B · « **Reply #64 on:** April 22, 2006, 07:09:16 PM »

Thanks for the link. Instead of confusing miles with kilometers, it looks like they're using UK gallons instead of US gallons. Using US gallons, 8.5 litres per 100 km works out to roughly 27.5 MPG (8.5 litres = roughly 2.25 US gallons). If they're using UK gallons, 8.5 litres works out to a bit less than 1.9 UK gallons, explaining their 30+ MPG figure. Yeah, that's it.

The US government mileage measurements are often a bit conservative, so if the US-sponsored site says the M3 makes 24 MPG, I have no trouble believing it could actually make 27-28 with a good driver.

J_A_B

uvwpvW · « **Reply #65 on:** April 22, 2006, 07:19:45 PM »

Still 24-27 mpg is a lot better than 12 for what I assume are similarly powerful engines. I have no doubt American auto-makers has the technology and know-how to make similarly efficient engines, but I don't think that has been a priority to the same extent as in Europe and Asia. That will probably change soon though.

J_A_B · « **Reply #66 on:** April 22, 2006, 07:42:26 PM »

"Still 24-27 mpg is a lot better than 12 for what I assume are similarly powerful engines. "

The Corvette makes about that same mileage. It's rated for 26 MPG highway. The newer Northstar-powered Cadillacs also get in the mid/upper 20's on the highway. My Buick has a Chevy LT1 engine that gets similar mileage as well (stock LT1's in the Buicks have their top end power choked off by a device that restricts airflow to the engine to keep it quieter, but it's easily removed).

It's worth noting that the BMW engine is a small straight-6 while I'm comparing it to a bunch of V-8's. I bet the BMW engine gets somewhat better mileage in stop-and-go city driving, at the cost of developing a lot less low-end torque.

A friend of mine used to own a 1985 Buick LeSabre with a lousy 307 V-8 that was rated for ~140 HP and it got about 15 MPG. Those bad days are long past. Sadly, reputations don't change as rapidly as technology does.

Some SUV's make terrible fuel mileage, the Hummer H2 being an obvious example.

Instead of 350 HP 25 MPG cars, I'd like to see a 200 HP 40 MPG 2-ton car.

J_A_B

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #67 on:** April 22, 2006, 07:50:39 PM »

Quote

Still 24-27 mpg is a lot better than 12 for what I assume are similarly powerful engines.

BMW M3 6 cyl, 3.2 L auto tran is rated at 16/23

Caddilac STS AWD 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Auto Trans is rated at 16/23

epa fuel economy

uvwpvW · « **Reply #68 on:** April 22, 2006, 08:02:23 PM »

The Northstar V8 is an excellent engine. Won the 4-litre category a few years ago. Amazing durability and a 100.000 mile service interval.

uvwpvW · « **Reply #69 on:** April 22, 2006, 08:41:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
Instead of 350 HP 25 MPG cars, I'd like to see a 200 HP 40 MPG 2-ton car.

J_A_B

The closest thing I can find is the BMW 520d. 1685 kg (1.7 tons), 2-litre diesel, 164 bhp, 135 mph top speed, 0-62 mph in 8.9 seconds, 58.9 mpg extra-urban (again UK gallons).

Excel1 · « **Reply #70 on:** April 22, 2006, 08:47:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
BTW the retiring CEO of EXXON is getting a $500 million retirement package.

No wonder he's smiling

Excel

DiabloTX · « **Reply #71 on:** April 22, 2006, 10:18:54 PM »

From 1995 to 2001, American oil companies shut down 24 oil refineries along the West Coast. Gas prices in the mid-1990s were low -- too low for the likes of the oil companies. Refineries were operating efficiently, producing large quantities of gasoline and therefore cheapening the cost of gas at the pump.

According to a 2001 report by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), oil companies deliberately shut down refineries in the mid-1990s in order to increase the price of gasoline. Wyden based this conclusion on his acquisition of internal oil company documents written in 1996.

One Mar. 7, 1996 Internal Texaco document said: "As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and or increasing the demand for gasoline."

A Nov. 20, 1996 Internal Chevron document said: "A senior energy analyst at the recent API (America Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce it's refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins...However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low."

Source

RTSigma · « **Reply #72 on:** April 23, 2006, 01:48:32 AM »

I still can't wait for when the middle east oil reserves go dry and we find a huge tap of oil or start diggin in Alaska.

Ho boy will there be a war about that, I gurantee. Them Middle East guys would HATE to have to get oil from us U.S. Pigs.

Nilsen · « **Reply #73 on:** April 23, 2006, 02:43:05 AM »

There is a nice series on one of our tv stations going now about the life and work of some people on a Statoil platform and their shore based operations including the geologist searching for the oil and those that sell it. Last night you got an insight in how their trading "floor" works. Kinda small office for such a huge company, and 3-5 people were selling shiploads of oil before they were pumped out to avoid having to sail around with cargos at a cost of 53k USD a day.

Really cool to watch them as they rang around to oil companies trying to get the best price possible. They were often dealing in one cent +- a barrel and that would mean as much as a million USD per cargo. They "needed" to sell about 4 cargos a day, but sometimes they could go for up to a week before selling one due to only a couple of cents a barrel difference between asking and offering price.

Would have been nice to see what happened on the oposite side of the telepone line and how the buyers were gambeling on getting that one cent in their favor.

E25280 · « **Reply #74 on:** April 23, 2006, 02:48:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
From 1995 to 2001, American oil companies shut down 24 oil refineries along the West Coast. Gas prices in the mid-1990s were low -- too low for the likes of the oil companies. Refineries were operating efficiently, producing large quantities of gasoline and therefore cheapening the cost of gas at the pump.

According to a 2001 report by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), oil companies deliberately shut down refineries in the mid-1990s in order to increase the price of gasoline. Wyden based this conclusion on his acquisition of internal oil company documents written in 1996.

One Mar. 7, 1996 Internal Texaco document said: "As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and or increasing the demand for gasoline."

A Nov. 20, 1996 Internal Chevron document said: "A senior energy analyst at the recent API (America Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce it's refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins...However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low."

Source

Yes, and how dare the oil companies act like any other company, and actually try to make a profit.

Why, the auto companies never shut down assembly plants when they build too many cars! It would be unthinkable for steel mills to shut down when there are ample stockpiles of steel. And, you know, my $5.49 case of Coke has been that price - well - FOREVER!

Ahem -

Sure, high gas prices stink. But it would be all the worse if gas was still $1 per gallon, yet no gas station had any gas to sell. This is all basic economics.

Getting rid of some of the stupid environmental regulations around formulations would help get rid of some of the volitility, but over the long haul I don't think it would make a huge difference in the overall price. Demand continues to grow, therefore price will continue to rise unless and until there is a dramatic increase in supply. The only way that will happen is if it is profitable for someone to build more capacity. Perhaps prices are finally getting to that point.