gas price thread

[john61ct]

Yes we need to drastically cut consumption of most resources.

Entirely new economic models required, material growth is not at all sustainable.

Reduce population by a huge percentage too.

 

[j bjork]

Here the price for petrol was just over 20sek/L a few days ago. That is just about $8/gal (a gallon seems to be 3.7854L and a dollar is 9,5289sek. 20x3.7854=75,708, so one gallon is a little under 76sek 75.708/9.5289=7,945)
Diesel are something like 1-2sek/L more expensive.

That is pretty much normal around here. Sure it has moved up steady, but it is not like it is double the price lately or anything.
I guess food prices etc. are higher here as a result, but it is not like we are starving.

I guess we will see what happens now though, when Putins war on Ukraine takes affect. It is rumored that it might lead to a 50% increase of fuel prices, that will sure have effect on everything.

 

[The Toecutter]

$3.20/gallon where I am at. The same amount of money worth of electricity will take my electric velomobile build 3,200 miles @ 30-35 mph, and perhaps 1,000 miles @ 70 mph(if it could reach it. It can't yet, but will soon). Transportation doesn't get much cheaper than that, but I could cut costs some by increasing efficiency. Not even taking the bus or light rail can compete on an economic basis(factoring in my vehicle's parts/maintenance costs), and I get to places every bit as fast as using a car.

If I built a single-seater car off of the platform using a 49cc diesel engine and removed the bicycle drivetrain, and got the aerodynamics somewhere around 2x the drag of a Milan SL velomobile, it would likely get 1,000+ mpg @ 70 mph, 3,000+ mpg @ 35 mph. It would only need 5 horsepower or so to reach 100 mph, and the math suggests it would get over 500 mpg even at that speed.

Cars have always been built to be deliberately wasteful. The auto industry has known how to make 70+ mpg midsized sedans and sports cars as well as 35+ mpg V8 musclecars since at least the 1970s using the antiquated engine technology of the day, but has deliberately kept the efficiency of its products down, by refusing to address load reduction. Load reduction for EVs also means you can use less batteries for the same range. A 120 Wh/mile @ 70 mph midsize sedan is possible, and will be the ticket to an affordable mass-market EV. It was also how to get a 200 mile range EV in the 1990s when the best batteries that could be had were NiMH with specific capacities 1/4 that of the current batteries on the market, as Solectria has proven with the 1996 Sunrise, which GM wouldn't even bother trying to produce back then, which would have been a $20,000 car in mass production according to the designer, James Worden.

The Vehicle Research Institute of Western Washington University made some interesting concepts in the 1970s. The 1978 Viking IV was powered by a 1.5L 4-cylinder diesel from a Volkswagen Rabbit, producing 48 peak horsepower. The car weighed a mere 1,250 lbs. In 1981, the Viking IV was able to average 87.5 mpg during a rally that spanned the continental United States. According to the car's builder, Professor Michael R. Seal, it was safe enough for the occupants to survive a 50 mph head on collision. In 1982, the car was tested at the GM proving grounds and the Transportation Research Center of Ohio, yielding 73 miles per gallon at a steady 70 mph. It was later upgraded to make use of low rolling resistance tires, a 5 speed transmission with overdrive, and a 1L, 3-cylinder turbo diesel. This allowed it to achieve 100 mpg at a steady 50 mph.

The Viking VI was built to achieve high fuel economy while exceeding the crash safety standards that were in place; it achieved 118 mpg at a steady 50 mph.

The Viking VII took this concept even further, proving that high fuel efficiency, safety, and high performance could exist within the same vehicle. It was able to accelerate from 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds, achieve over 1G on a skid pad, and still manage 50 mpg highway. It was driven to a top speed of 186 mph on the Bonneville Salt Flats. It made use of a 4 cylinder DOHC Boxer engine which produced 133 horsepower. These features of high performance, adequate safety, and high fuel economy could coexist within the same vehicle due to a low drag coefficient of only 0.26, a small frontal area, a lightweight composite body, and an aluminum chassis. The performance of this car rivaled some the fastest production cars of the era; for comparison, the legendary Ferrari Daytona did 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds and had a top speed of 175 mph.

None of the Viking Research Cars have ever reached production. The Avion, modeled off a previous Viking Research car and designed by former VRI student Craig Henderson, was perhaps the closest any of the cars came to being produced. While the car only achieved 40 mpg combined, it could reach a top speed of 135 mph and accelerate from 0-60 mph in under 6 seconds using a 4-cylinder engine from a 1980s model fuel-injected Audi. This combined performance and fuel economy was possible thanks to a 0.27 drag coefficient and a curb weight of only 1,500 lbs.

The major automakers also demonstrated concepts that were at least equally as impressive.

Renault unveiled their EVE concept car in 1980. The EVE was built on a Renault R18 chassis, used a supercharged 1.1 L inline 4-cylinder supercharged diesel engine, and had a 0.239 drag coefficient. This engine output a maximum of 50 horsepower. The curb weight of the vehicle was 1,900 lbs. The combination of these traits allowed it to achieve 70 mpg combined fuel economy.

Expanding upon the previous concept, the Renault EVE+ concept car was revealed to the public in 1983. It used the same 50 horsepower diesel engine as the EVE, but had reduced the curb weight to 1,880 lbs, had reduced the drag coefficient to 0.225, and achieved 63 mpg city, 81 mpg highway.

While the diesel Renault EVE concept cars were being developed and tested, Renault was also working on their gasoline powered Vesta concept cars. The Renault Vesta was revealed to the motoring public in 1981. It had a weight of 1130 lbs, a 0.25 drag coefficient, and a top speed of 75 mph. The Vesta's fuel economy is 78 mpg.

Renault's next generation of their Vesta concept car had reduced weight and reduced aerodynamic drag, which improved fuel economy and top speed. The 1987 Renault Vesta II weighed only 1,047 lbs, had a 0.186 drag coefficient, a 27 horsepower engine, and was able to return 78 mpg city, 107 mpg highway. Its top speed was over 80 mph.

Not wanting to be outdone by Renault, Peugeot and Citroen began the ECO 2000 program. The 1981 Citroen SA103 was able to obtain 65 mpg, thanks to a 0.27 drag coefficient, 948 lb curb weight, and a rear-mounted 700cc 2-cylinder gasoline engine.

The 1983 Citroen SA117 showed a remarkable improvement over its predecessor due to a drag coefficient of 0.21, front mounted engine with a front wheel drive configuration, and a curb weight of only 932 lbs; these improvements resulted in a fuel economy of 79 mpg. The SL117 used the same engine as the SA103.

The 1982 Citroen SA109 used an upgraded engine to 750cc 3-cylinder gasoline engine. The car weighed in at 1,058 lbs and had a drag coefficient of 0.321, giving a fuel economy of 67 mpg.

The 1984 Citroen SL110 was the first of the ECO 2000 vehicles revealed to the public. It made use of the SA109's 35 horsepower engine, which allowed a top speed of 88 mph. The fuel economy was 76 mpg combined, and 112 mpg at a steady 55 mph. This was achievable due to a low drag coefficient of 0.22 and 992 lb curb weight.

Peugeot also revealed its ECO 2000 concept car. With a drag coefficient of 0.21, 990 lb curb weight, and a 28 horsepower 2-cylinder gasoline engine, the Peugeot ECO 2000 returned 70 mpg city and 77 mpg highway.

An effort by Peugeot from 1982 were its VERA and VERA+ concept cars. Unlike the ECO 2000, these cars used 50 horsepower turbo diesel engines. The VERA+ had a 0.22 drag coefficient, 1,740 lbs curb weight, and achieved 55 mpg city, 87 mpg highway. The VERA+ also had performance comparable to the commercially available cars of its time, with 0-60 mph acceleration in 13.2 seconds and a top speed of 100 mph.

The 1981 Volkswagen Auto 2000 obtained 63 mpg city, 71 mpg highway, boasting a 0.25 drag coefficient, 53 horsepower diesel engine, and 1,716 lb curb weight.

Volkswagen's E80 diesel concept obtained even better fuel economy. Using a 51 horsepower supercharged 3-cylinder turbo diesel, the 1,540 lb Volkswagen E80 managed to obtain 74 mpg city and 99 mpg highway. It had a 0.35 drag coefficient.

In 1983, Volvo was able to demonstrate that fuel efficiency, safety, practicality, and performance were possible in a production-ready car with its LCP 2000. First and foremost, the car was designed for maximum safety; not only were the rear seats facing backward so that the center of the car could be designed for added structural rigidity and increased resistance against side impacts, but the car passed a head-on passenger-crash survival test at 35 mph, which exceeded the 30 mph requirement of the time. Performance was excellent for the time period and is still comparable to the entry level compact cars sold today, with 0-60 mph acceleration in 11 seconds and a top speed of 110 mph. Fuel economy was rated at 56 mpg city, 81 mpg highway, and 65 mpg combined. The car weighed a mere 1,555 lbs, had a 0.25 drag coefficient, and was powered by an 88 horsepower diesel engine. In volume of 20,000 cars per year, the cost penalty would have been effectively zero over comparable production cars for the period.

The 1982 GM TPC managed an astounding 61 mpg city, 74 mpg highway, using a lightweight aluminum body and engine; the curb weight was light at only 1,040 lbs, but the drag coefficient was an unremarkable 0.31. It used a 3-cylinder gasoline engine which only produced 38 horsepower.

In 1983, GM had upgraded its Lean Machine concept to obtain up to 200 mpg. To obtain such stunning efficiency, the vehicle needed to be as light and as aerodynamic as possible, weighing in at only 400 lbs and having a 0.15 drag coefficient. A 38 horsepower, 2-cylinder Otto cycle engine was able to rocket this machine from 0-60 mph in 6.8 seconds. Top speed was 80 mph.

Not wishing to be surpassed by the American and European automakers, Toyota began experimenting with its AXV series of concept cars in the late 1980s.

The first Toyota AXV was powered by a 56 horsepower direct-injection diesel engine; this combined with a low curb weighed of under 1,500 lbs, a 0.26 drag coefficient, and a continuously variable transmission allowed the AXV to achieve 89 mpg city, 110 mpg highway, and 98 mpg combined.

Later incarnations of the AVX were not as fuel-efficient.

In 1991, Honda developed the EPX, a tandem two-seater concept car that used a 1 liter lean-burn engine, weighed under 1,400 lbs, and supposedly returned a fuel economy of 100 mpg. Currently, the car isn't in running condition.

Continuing a trend of fuel efficient concepts, the Honda JVX was unveiled in 1997; using a 1.0 liter, 3-cylinder gasoline engine and an electric motor with a capacitor bank, it was able to manage 67 mpg. Designed for safety, the passenger and driver seat belts are configured to inflate during a crash to help protect the occupants from injuries normally caused by seat belts.

I could rant on and on. Efficient concept cars continued to be built to this day, like the 80 mpg GM Precept midsized car(1999), the 70 mpg Dodge Intrepid ESX(2000), and the 72 mph Ford Prodigy(2000). All of which were comparable in interior space to cars such as the Chevrolet Malibu, Dodge Intrepid, and Ford Taurus. But that efficiency almost NEVER trickles into the products we can actually buy. That decision is deliberate.

The auto industry simply does not want efficiency, and neither does the government that industry has purchased. The masses are told and relentlessly beaten with advertising that they "need" SUVs, and the wealthiest 20% of the population that can actually afford to buy new cars drive the market. The poor and lower middle class who necessarily seek out economy buy used, and must make due with used products produced by a rigged market. Relatively fuel efficient Toyota and Honda sedans hold their value extremely well on the used market while trucks, SUVs, and luxury cars rapidly depreciate. There is a reason for this. Supply and demand. Economy and reliability are commonly the major deciding factors among the middle and lower classes when selecting a vehicle, but for the upper middle class and wealthy, bling is the deciding factor because relatively speaking, money is no object . Style over substance, damned be the costs, and the auto industry will gladly accommodate and encourage that stupid rich people keep wasting their money to the benefit of the financial elite all is well. The wasteful consumption trickles down when Joe Sixpack has to buy a used car, and the cheapest options are often gas guzzlers with high maintenance costs.

If wealth/income were more evenly distributed, more sensible market pressures would be driving the new vehicle market and there would be increased pressure for the auto industry to get off its ass and dramatically improve efficiency(not this incremental bullshit that results in no meaningful change), as it could have easily done many decades ago, which would have greatly reduced greenhouse gas emissions and pushed the possibility of resource shortages out by decades or more, in the process, giving humanity more much-needed time to transition to renewables. This applies not just to the auto industry, but most industries in general. Unfortunately, we're very likely to get collapse of industrial civilization as the consequence of this needless waste of resources, because future generations won't have the necessary resources available.

Yes we need to drastically cut consumption of most resources.

Entirely new economic models required, material growth is not at all sustainable.

Reduce population by a huge percentage too.

Overpopulation is only one part of the resource consumption/greenhouse gas equation.

The wealthiest 1% of the world's population accounts for almost as much resource consumption as the bottom 90% combined, and accounts for as much greenhouse gas emissions as the bottom 50% of the world's population combined, according to Oxfam.

One wealthy individual taking their superyacht out for a weekend joyride will use more gasoline than an upper middle class McMansion dweller driving their Cadillac Escalade 15,000 miles over the course of a year. That same wealthy individual heating their swimming pool for a weekend party at their massive mansion will use more electricity than a cheaply-built upper-middle-class McMansion keeping the AC at 60F in the summer and heat at 80F in the winter and constantly running lights/appliances when not in use will use in a whole year. That wealthy individual might take a private jet to see their aunt in Switzerland multiple times a year using more jet fuel than the upper-middle-class McMansion dweller would use in a whole lifetime of flying around the world on commercial airplanes. That wealthy individual dining at $300/plate 5-star restaurant just once will generate more carbon from their diet than that McMansion dweller eating steak and lobster and 10,000 mile Caesar Salads multiple times a week will generate in a whole month. The contrast becomes even more stark when you compare the consumption of the wealthy to a working class American living in a trailer park or urban ghetto driving a 30 mpg beater car 5,000 miles a year and occasionally eating fast food(disparity by at least a factor of 50), or greatly more stark when compared to say, a sub-Saharan African that doesn't even have a bicycle and eats beans and rice or even UNICEF soy flour every day(disparity by at least a factor of 1,000).

And this doesn't even account for the resources wasted for the wealthiest among us to have a massive military and surveillance infrastructure to protect themselves and their ill-gotten gains from being appropriated by the exploited masses, upper-middle-class on down to the most impoverished. The world's militaries need to be disbanded if we are to have resources in the future for a decent living standard. Our "leaders" are squandering countless resources on nuclear weapons alone, which do nothing positive for the human condition whatsoever. The rare minerals used in their production could produce the world's electricity needs for centuries, without much in the way of CO2 generation(albeit, there are grave consequences for the waste produced and for accidental meltdowns, especially regarding Fukushima and the subsequent cover-up as the oceans die, although modern breeder reactors, integral fast reactors, and even DIY home-brew thorium reactors could greatly mitigate this, and have been subsequently banned in places around the world for the threat to the energy monopolies that they are).

In short, things are as screwed up as they are because we have an aristocracy making all the major decisions, including in so-called "first-world democracies", for their own personal gain.

Cutting population won't do much without addressing this. Disparity in wealth/purchasing power is a large driver in making this grotesque level of consumption among a small percentage of the population possible. The resources they consume and waste to support their gluttony could be used to make more solar panels, make our homes and buildings more energy efficient, rebuild our infrastructure, and reduce poverty/IMR in poor nations to reduce the desire for poor people to have as many children as possible to support them in old age. But the capitalist class LOVES surplus populations and desperation encouraged by poverty to drive wages down, at least until that surplus is no longer needed thanks to automation(then the desire shifts to eliminating this surplus population once it can no longer contribute to corporate profits).

Wasteful resource consumption keeps people spending money and grows the GDP, making things look good on paper. This is why governments around the world, captured by aristocracy, have made policy decisions that maximize the squandering of resources. This is why planned obsolescence is the guiding principle in the design of new products, promoting the massive "landfill economy". That aristocracy then profits from all the transactions made and from any debt generated for those purchases(necessary when the consumer class isn't paid enough to consume) and grows its wealth and power more. And they aren't going to give it up, even if it is imperative to actually saving the planet and allowing future generations a decent living standard. They'll initiate nuclear war and destroy the planet if losing their power/control/wealth is the alternative. As we shift to renewables, a necessary transition that was deliberately stalled and delayed for decades by the aristocracy because it was a threat to the viability of their system of economic exploitation, they now want to micromanage our lives to tax us for everything we do under the guise of "saving the planet", while they get to keep consuming the planet like locusts and destroying resources/wealth with endless wars, blaming the poor masses for "overpopulation" and the middle classes for "wasting" their resources. By 2030, "You will own nothing and be happy." as the saying goes.

I would not be surprised in the future if even our e-bikes would be tracked and taxed per mile of use and blamed for wasting resources(after all, you could be taking mass transit, just have your "voluntary" vaccine passport or "voluntary" digital biometric ID ready!), while the rich continue riding around in private airplanes and superyachts untracked and unbothered in a scenario of rapidly declining resource availability for everyone else.

 

[neptronix]

Oh yeah we could put a huge dent in global warming if we just had an aerodynamics requirement or fuel economy requirement so high that it forced the use of Tesla/Mercedes level aerodynamics across the entire fleet.

Taht small change would be so big that it'd alter the course of history if done in the 30-40's when we were really beginning to understand aerodynamics.

Way too much low hanging fruit yet to be picked. It does make you wonder.

 

[The Toecutter]

Oh yeah we could put a huge dent in global warming if we just had an aerodynamics requirement or fuel economy requirement so high that it forced the use of Tesla/Mercedes level aerodynamics across the entire fleet.

Consider that the average 2022 model year car has a drag coefficient equivalent to the 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen(Cd 0.27-.28), and still hasn't caught up to the 1935 Tatra T77a(Cd 0.21).

Going to an industry average drag coefficient of 0.19 and low rolling resistance tires with a Crr ~0.007, with modern engine technology and still fulfilling modern safety requirements, this sort of change would yield highway fuel economies of 70+ mpg for 4-cylinder midsized sedans, 80+ mpg for 4-cylinder 4-seater compacts and hatchbacks, 40+ mpg for V8 muscle cars, 40-50 mpg for 4/6-cylinder CUVs, 30-35 mpg for full-sized V8 trucks and SUVs, and even 40+ mpg V12 supercars. And it goes up from there when you consider diesels and hybrids.

And things can get significantly more efficient from Tesla/Mercedes' offerings. These are oversized vehicles with large frontal areas and many concessions to styling/planned obsolescence that make their drag 30-50% higher than it could otherwise be for the form factors employed.

In 1996, Solectria demonstrated a compact electric car called the Sunrise that could seat 4 and only needed ~120 Wh/mile to do 60 mph on the highway, a significant reduction in energy consumption from the present-day Tesla's Model 3.

But no one wants to make affordable cars, not even Tesla, since the only people wealthy enough to afford brand new cars are buying luxury, fully-loaded tech-everything, and who can afford something more than what they perceive as a "penalty box". This is the upper 20% of the population. The majority of Americans not in this upper 20% can't even come up with $500 for an unexpected emergency expense and live paycheck to paycheck, and almost exclusively buy used, if they can even afford a car at all(and most can't and take out loans to pretend they can). Another consequence of political malfeasance from decades ago and rapidly declining living standards for average people, masked in the Consumer Price Index by "hedonic adjustments".

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Damn you toecutter, talking about rare and wild vehicles! I'd love to find an OG Tatra to drive around, those things just ooze style. I even had a chance to buy a Solterra-made car a year ago off Govdeals kept at one of the Kansas universities, but it was a Suzuki subcompact-turned GM Metro rebadged by a third party using lead-acids.

Imma pump the breaks a bit on the penalty box talk- you're completely spot-on about the loss of the emergency fund and the lack of middle class buying power- because one problem of making a cheap car is simple human behaviors. Eventually, your average human being thinks that simply because "X Item" is cheap, its also bad. All cheap cars like the Omni, or the Falcon, or the Corolla really toed the line of "great" quality but also, a price that didn't make them seem like something was "wrong" with the vehicle, and their success was predicated as much on global events (see: Dodge Omni and the late 70s depression, Citroen 2CV). The fact that used EV is now beginning to compete with the likes of a New Nissan Altima will show this off soon- tons of people will still pick that hoary old-man-silver sedan.

The other problem is just crash ratings and human reactions to ratings. Statistically, there is no difference between 4/5 and 1/5. It's either good, or it ain't. I absolutely believe that we have hit the point where we can have <0.20 CD AND extreme crash safety, but even if this was a perfect world where the savings from making such a vehicle were given to the consumer we still wouldn't see it for some time. Finally, all that adds weight even with all the improvements we've made. Batteries are heavy things, It'll be hard to see a Tesla at ~3,000lbs let alone with a unibody construction and modern crash safety.

I think we could see a change in the direction of the ship if the Aptera is successful.

EDIT: My Premium 91 fill was at $3.13

 

[Hillhater]

Cars have always been built to be deliberately wasteful. The auto industry has known how to make 70+ mpg midsized sedans and sports cars as well as 35+ mpg V8 musclecars since at least the 1970s using the antiquated engine technology of the day, but has deliberately kept the efficiency of its products down,....
.......

The auto industry simply does not want efficiency, and neither does the government that industry has purchased. The masses are told and relentlessly beaten with advertising that they "need" SUVs, and the wealthiest 20% of the population that can actually afford to buy new cars drive the market.

You have that ass backwards..
The motor industry is based on mass production, and profitability ( the ability to remain in business without subsidies) ..
...which means they have to manufacture vehicles that the consumers want and will buy
Customers dont want ugly, unconventional designs (Edsel) or lightweight fragile unpractical tricycles that wont get 3 kids to school or granny to the Hospital, let alone take the family on holiday !
No, the car industry produces the products that people ask for. They cannot afford to go broke making impractical concept lke vehicles for general sale.
...AND.. they have made HUGE gains in efficiency since the ‘70s, comparing like for like.
A typical family car in the 70s would have been returning 25-30 mpg....todays equivalent will easily return 50 mpg,..and the best ones much more !

 

[The Toecutter]

You have that ass backwards..
The motor industry is based on mass production, and profitability ( the ability to remain in business without subsidies) ..

The automobile industry is one of the most subsidized industries on the planet. Without government intervention, GM and Chrysler wouldn't exist today.

...which means they have to manufacture vehicles that the consumers want and will buy
Customers dont want ugly, unconventional designs (Edsel) or lightweight fragile unpractical tricycles that wont get 3 kids to school or granny to the Hospital, let alone take the family on holiday !

An efficient, unconventional car doesn't need to be aesthetically ugly. Indeed, modern cars have all of the styling cues an ultra-streamlined car would have, without the actual streamlining. Subtle changes to the proportions of the vehicle that are almost imperceptible to the naked eye can make a massive difference in drag coefficient. The industry is deliberately giving us hampered products that aren't as good as they can be. It allows them to slowly ration out advances so as to maximize profit on each incremental improvement. The cars I mentioned above prove this, as those designs for their time period were quite conventional in appearance. Even Greenpeace was able to re-design the Renault Twingo to almost double its fuel economy, without dramatically changing its appearance, without adding significantly to the production cost, while increasing its performance. It's not rocket science.

There is plenty of low-hanging fruit to be picked that isn't.

No, the car industry produces the products that people ask for.

It produces the products it WANTS people to buy, then tells them they need it. When they don't buy and the industry goes under, it gets bailed out at taxpayer expense, which has happened repeatedly, and will very likely happen again in the near future.

...AND.. they have made HUGE gains in efficiency since the ‘70s, comparing like for like.
A typical family car in the 70s would have been returning 25-30 mpg....todays equivalent will easily return 50 mpg,..and the best ones much more !

They've made incremental gains slowly over a long period of time. Interlocking boards of directors between the auto industry, fossil fuel industry, the various defense firms, and the revolving door with government have made sure not to disrupt anyone's applecart. The fuel economy we see today with modern engine technology and average aerodynamics(by today's standards, matching the 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen from a whole century ago), we could have easily had in the 1970s with antiquated engine technology and a focus on massive drag reduction as was demonstrated with various concept cars as early as the 1930s. The concepts that have been built and tested are proof of this. The cruising range we see in modern electric cars was almost doable in the 1990s with batteries 1/4 as energy dense as what exists today(Solectria Sunrise, among others), and had those cars been mass produced, they'd have been affordable.

There are multiple books that document how the auto industry has been dragging its feet for its entire existence:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1122113.Taken_for_a_Ride

https://usakochan.net/download/the-new-oil-crisis-and-fuel-economy-technologies/

Of course, I found that out before reading those books by studying all kinds of SAE publications, reading car magazines, and putting the pieces together. The books I read only further confirmed and even documented the vary issues I suspected to be the case.

I'd be more than happy to see the modern automobile industry consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs, as it is a creature of government largess.

 

[99t4]

A typical family car in the 70s would have been returning 25-30 mpg....

Where?

 

[Hillhater]

A typical family car in the 70s would have been returning 25-30 mpg....

Where?

Where i am .!

 

[The Toecutter]

Where?

Australia, Japan, and Europe, for certain. Maybe not in the U.S., where half that was typical. That was also around the time the U.S. got its ass handed to it by the Japanese manufacturers who sold products of that level of efficiency that didn't fall apart, for cheaper. A lot of the safety standards were created to try to kill off this competition because the consumer made it clear they wanted efficiency. Of course, back then, average working people could actually afford new cars. The upper 20% were still buying guzzling status symbols, but there used to be more variety to the market forces back then.

 

[JackFlorey]

In 1996, Solectria demonstrated a compact electric car called the Sunrise that could seat 4 and only needed ~120 Wh/mile to do 60 mph on the highway, a significant reduction in energy consumption from the present-day Tesla's Model 3.

I saw that prototype. It was miles away from being a real car - a car that could actually be mass produced, be sold for some reasonable price and meet safety requirements.

I am all for improvements in aerodynamics. But seeing a prototype and thinking we can actually do that reminds me of all those posts about new batteries that are going to be four times the energy density of lithium-ion, half the price and ten times the life - and that will be available Real Soon Now.

About the best that the auto industry has done in a production car is the original Honda Insight - a very driveable two seater that got 70mpg with only a mild hybrid assist. It had faired rear wheels, very aggressive aerodynamics (the rear wheels had a significantly narrower wheelbase, for example, to reduce area in the rear) and the usual creature comforts. A friend of mine was commuting regularly with this car between LA and Phoenix (Perris to Eloy actually) and the car did an admirable job of moving him hundreds of thousands of miles without many problems, and with very little gas.

Honda set a very low sales target - 6500 a year worldwide. It didn't hit even half of that.

No one wants cars like that, even when they are available. THAT is the problem.

I now have a PHEV that will do 230 wh/mi when driven carefully - and I had to look pretty hard for that.

 

[99t4]

No, the car industry produces the products that people ask for.

It produces the products it WANTS people to buy, then tells them they need it. When they don't buy and the industry goes under, it gets bailed out at taxpayer expense, which has happened repeatedly, and will very likely happen again in the near future.

Agree. Hence, the need for expensive mouth-watering ads on TV, magazines, newspapers, billboards, streaming services, social media. etc., to say nothing of the covert product-placement on TV and movies.

"Automakers spend about $35 billion annually on advertising, easily outspending any other industry. This is evident at a spectacle like the Super Bowl, where many of the biggest ad buys come from car companies."

“It’s an arms race situation,” says Greg Shill, a law professor at the University of Iowa who studies how the country’s legal system codifies automobile dependence. “You have manufacturers with an incentive to produce heavier vehicles for themselves and for their customers. And they’ve shifted their ad money to these vehicle purchases and put billions behind it.”

From https://archive.curbed.com/2020/1/31/21115593/super-bowl-worst-car-ads Sobering article.

 

[Hillhater]

. The automobile industry is one of the most subsidized industries on the planet. Without government intervention, GM and Chrysler wouldn't exist today.

Like so many other industries, banks, etc...they were victims of the GFC.

,[ the car industry ].
produces the products it WANTS people to buy, then tells them they need it. When they don't buy and the industry goes under, it gets bailed out at taxpayer expense, which has happened repeatedly....

..?Such as ?.
But that will very likely be what happens with the forced move to EVs , which the majority dont want and wont be able to afford !

I'd be more than happy to see the modern automobile industry consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs, ....

. ? ..and be replaced by what ??
Transportation is on of the key factors that has allowed modern societies to develop.
Mobility and the industries that enable it ..( car manufacturing, support industries, road and infrastructure building, even the oil industries,....have been major job creators that enable millions of workers to improve their standard of living.
Until you have an effective working substitute, it is madness to remove the existing system.

 

[Hillhater]

No, the car industry produces the products that people ask for.

It produces the products it WANTS people to buy, then tells them they need it. When they don't buy and the industry goes under, it gets bailed out at taxpayer expense, which has happened repeatedly, and will very likely happen again in the near future.

Agree. Hence, the need for expensive mouth-watering ads on TV, magazines, newspapers, billboards, streaming services, social media. etc., to say nothing of the covert product-placement on TV and movies.
.........

No, that is just a Free Market economy in action....and is called “Marketing”
Every producer does it to try to improve their share of the customer base, when there are several producers with similar competitive products.
There are very complex methods used to figure out how much to spend on marketing relative to the value of the business gained.

 

[JackFlorey]

But that will very likely be what happens with the forced move to EVs , which the majority dont want and wont be able to afford !

Given that they will be considerably cheaper than gas cars - that's not really supportable.

The rich, of course, will still be able to afford both gas and gas cars.

 

[Hillhater]

But that will very likely be what happens with the forced move to EVs , which the majority dont want and wont be able to afford !

Given that they will be considerably cheaper than gas cars - that's not really supportable.

In order to be cheaper, they will have to figure out how to produce a battery, motor, drivetrain, power inverter , and associated control electronics,.......all cheaper than a established ICE drive line !.. ($5k tops ?)
....Absolutely no evidence of that to date.!

.Why All Those EV-Battery ‘Breakthroughs’ You Hear About Aren’t Breaking Through

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-all-those-ev-battery-breakthroughs-you-hear-about-arent-breaking-through-11645851613?mod=Searchresults_pos5&page=1

 

[JackFlorey]

In order to be cheaper, they will have to figure out how to produce a battery, motor, drivetrain, power inverter , and associated control electronics,.......all cheaper than a established ICE drive line !.. ($5k tops ?)

Yep. And for that to happen, all that has to happen is to see exactly the same reductions in cost that we have seen for the past 10 years, for another 8 years. No new inventions/discoveries/miracles needed. The cheapest EV in the US is already a bit more than half the cost of the average new gas car, and that trend will continue.

 

[Hillhater]

In order to be cheaper, they will have to figure out how to produce a battery, motor, drivetrain, power inverter , and associated control electronics,.......all cheaper than a established ICE drive line !.. ($5k tops ?)

Yep. And for that to happen, all that has to happen is to see exactly the same reductions in cost that we have seen for the past 10 years, for another 8 years. No new inventions/discoveries/miracles needed. The cheapest EV in the US is already a bit more than half the cost of the average new gas car, and that trend will continue.

Comparing similar size and market sectors ?..NOT !
Why dont you compare the cheapest EV , to the Cheapest ICE ?
Cheapest EV..Nissan Leaf,..$28,400
Direct equivalent ICE....Nissan Versa,..$14,900
CHEAPEST ICE...GM Spark..$13,400.

....And its hard to believe the cost of motors , batteries, etc will reduce dramatically in the future since the cost and availability of key raw materials seems to be bottoming out , if not increasing.
Once real big volumes of EVs start to appear, material shortages will put upward pressure on costs.
The “low hanging fruit”. of cost reductions have been picked.
Another of those “breakthroughs” will be needed .

 

[Chalo]

Another consequence of political malfeasance from decades ago and rapidly declining living standards for average people, masked in the Consumer Price Index by "hedonic adjustments".

Butbutbut, your teevee is smart now! Surely that means it's worth more! Your car tells you when you're crossing the double yellow and fixin' to kill someone. That's worth more too, right? So it's like you got more money, even though you didn't.

Right?

 

[Chalo]

In order to be cheaper, they will have to figure out how to produce a battery, motor, drivetrain, power inverter , and associated control electronics,.......all cheaper than a established ICE drive line !.. ($5k tops ?)

Yep. And for that to happen, all that has to happen is to see exactly the same reductions in cost that we have seen for the past 10 years, for another 8 years. No new inventions/discoveries/miracles needed.

Even that ignores the dramatic reduction in fuel and maintenance cost of EVs compared to stinkers. Because ultimately, what matters to the average wage slave is the total cost of ownership, not the purchase cost.

 

[calab]

https://www.truecar.com/electric/
https://www.truecar.com/blog/how-electric-vehicles-save-you-money/

According to Consumer Reports, charging at home can save EV owners up to $1,000 a year compared to gasoline.

a study by Consumer Reports found that EV owners save an average of $4,600 on maintenance over the total lifespan of the vehicle, which means EV owners are spending half as much on maintenance as compared to owners of gasoline-powered vehicles.

An EV battery can be costly to replace—at an average of $5,500—but they can also last for up to ten years before this service is required.

2010 era - https://www.edmunds.com/industry-center/analysis/hybrid-buyers-do-the-math-and-dont-come-back.html

The problem is that hybrids (as well as electric vehicles) generally don't make economic sense in terms of return on investment. Hybrid cars typically cost more than their gas-engine-only counterparts. A payback on the price premium can take years, depending on the difference in fuel economy on the hybrid versus its gas counterpart as well as the price of gas. The higher the price of gas, the quicker the payback is achieved. But even at $5 a gallon, Edmunds.com's analysis shows the return on investment can be lengthy.

 

[Hillhater]

.
Even that ignores the dramatic reduction in fuel and maintenance cost of EVs compared to stinkers. Because ultimately, what matters to the average wage slave is the total cost of ownership, not the purchase cost.

We have been round this track already several times on this forum..and there is nothing dramatic , or even significant, to be seen !
THERE IS NO FINANCIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR CHOOSING AN EV OVER AN ICE.
Electricity is never free, and the cost for EV charging can be more than you may think depending on where you live and the cost of electricity. If you are lucky an EV owner may save a few hundred $$$s a year on fuel.
Maintenance is also furphy..its not uncommon to be offered 3-5 years “free” servicing when you buy a new car, and most now operate “Fixed price” service plans ($3-$500 per yr is normal) .
But if you think an EV is a “maintenance free” drive,..think again. Most service plans are simply safety checks on brakes, suspension , tyres, lights , fluid levels, etc etc, which an EV would still need,...likely together with some battery condition , sensor, checks etc.
Bottom line is , the EV buyer will have to wait many years to recoup that initial excess capital cost.
And then there is that little matter of battery life and its cost !
Not many EVs are yet old enough to reliably give an indication of battery costs......However,.. the Nissan leaf may be a good indicator. Many Leafs are now 10+ yrs old, and even ignoring the issues with Gen1 leaf packs, there are many examples of 5+ yr old models with gen 2/3 packs that have lost capacity and need replacement . Nissan (Australia) have a pack replacement plan. That costs the owners $9900 + fitting + taxes ..EXCHANGE. ( or $30,000 outright + fitting )
So, at best i would suggest it is a gamble as to what actual battery costs are if you keep an EV beyond warranty.

 

[Hillhater]

But back on topic..

.Oil prices have no immediate cap. Prior to the invasion, rising demand already provided price support. By shutting down American production, the US gave up its control over the oil price.
As a net exporter of oil, the US also supplied the world market. Thus the US had a role with both supply and demand.
Second, any time oil prices surged, the US could enter the market with more supply and thus help control prices.
Moreover, as the only non-OPEC producer, the US had some control over global oil prices.
"..................
Perhaps part of the strategy involves driving up oil prices, to help hasten the switch to green energy and technologies. And in time, perhaps that transition will occur. In the meantime, most of those technologies do not generate a strong ROI — either for the consumer or for businesses. And with a Russian invasion of Ukraine, perhaps it’s time for a rethink.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-True-Cost-Of-The-Green-Energy-Boom-Is-Now-Being-Realized.html

 

[Chalo]

I think $10/gal gasoline would be a major net benefit to American society. But not nearly as much as $20/gal gas.

I'm making a wish. Because people won't do the right thing just because it's right.