Gas Prices

A County in Texas is already starting to boycott Exxon

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA042606.01A.gas_boycott.a7f4954.html

My problem is 4 cyl may not help this time. Most V6 get only a few gallons less MPG that 4 Cyl. Trust me before I had kids all I had was 4 cyl cars and pickups. For example I have a V6 Ford Escape that gets 21 mph. If I switch to a Honda CRV 4cyl I get 24mph. Its not the big savings you got switching from a 1970's american V8 to a 1970's 4 cyl. Look I know eventually fossil fuel will eventually run out, but it seems we are no where near ready for the transition. Iceland and other countries have already started the switch a hydrogen economy years ago ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2208013.stm) . I big concern is an indiviual with the right equipment (using a solar setup to extract hydrogen from rainwater) can produce hydrogen for free, will big business allow this. Did the oil companies greed create this mess?? Is America now behind because of oil lobbyist holding back alternative fuels, and is oil companies trying to squeeze out as much profit, if we are on a downward slope of oil production, at our expense?
 
*scratches head*

Does anyone else notice a certain inconsistency between the idea a little-bitty Escape gets 21 MPG and a Lincoln Town Car can get 28(or better). Even if we're talking city/highway combined the big car with a 300horse V-8 still gets about 20...

A Northstar in a Seville will knock down 30 all day long at a steady 65 on the highway... A 5spd Saturn with a four-popper does 32... Something here ain't quite right...
 
+1 with SUV and pickups actually being useful enough to outweigh the cost. Simple put with any decent size SUV, you can buy something large and deliver it yourself to your home. When gas prices go up so will the cost of moving vans and delivery of big items.
 
:confused: what Town Car gets 28mpg? you'd be lucky to see 28 highway in one of those and don't even start on average. the Northstar is a good engine but not nearly efficient enough to average 30mpg in a two ton sedan. highway mileage is a useless figure to anyone that doesn't commute hundreds of miles each day.

Smaller, more fuel efficient cars do make a difference. Most people have no need to go offroad, haul lumber, move furniture. For those of us that own trucks the capabilities outweigh the fuel costs but that doesn't apply to everyone.
 
I don't know how you can own a home, have an active lifestyle, or have pets and not need a truck or SUV. I traded in my VW (which got 22-ish mpg with a V6) for my 4Runner because I couldn't even fit a simple bicycle or large dog crate in the darn thing without a 15 minute complete disassebly or tying things on the roof. And the car before that -- I scratched the heck out of the roof because I tried moving a table top a few miles. That was a mistake.

In the few years I've owned that SUV, I've moved several appliances and furniture, table saw, other large tools, lumber, drywall, windows for my home, boxes of tile, boxes of hardwood flooring, etc. When you think about the money I saved on delivery, I bet it's hundreds of dollars because delivery is generally somewhere around $50-100. And, here's the kicker for those that complain that my SUV is wasteful on gas. I actually preserve gas because that's one less HUGE delivery truck making it's way to my house everytime I buy something. What kind of mileage do those get? 5mpg...!

If a car owner and 4 friends wanted to go skiing or camping (which I do about 40 weekends each year), they would have to likely take 2 vehicles. If the round trip drive is 200 miles, the total gas consumption is 16 gallons assuming each car gets 25mpg. Contrast that with my 4Runner at 20mpg. I can easily fit 5 people and either skiing or camping gear for all in my truck. That same trip uses only 10 gallons of gas which is 60% more efficient than two cars. If my truck saves 6 gallons of gas for 40 similar trips throughout the year, then it SAVES 240 gallons of gas that would be used by 2 cars for the same trip each year. How do ya like them apples??? One could say that I should stop skiing or camping, but that ain't likely now is it...

For landfill factor:
And SUVs tend to last longer too, which creates less waste, less landfill, and consumes less resources making new ones every couple years. I'd be shocked if my SUV didn't last 10 years or more with minor work. I'd be shocked if typical modern plastic cars even made it 10 years without complete overhauls. And, I've rescued a few items destined for landfills too. I've gotten some nice free stuff which might be keeping stuff from landfills. Just last week I picked up a working clothes dryer that was destined for a landfill. Since mine is about 20 years, old, I figured I might need it one day soon. I also got a "new condition" free box spring and a beautiful queen solid oak bedframe for my spare bedroom that was headed for the dump because the family was turning their spare bedroom into an office.

And yes, I do feel much safer in my SUV than in a car. It's not only logical but backed up by statistics. Stronger frame, stronger steel, more interior space, better vision, sitting higher off the ground, more body weight, etc. Would you rather get into a head on or broadside collision with another vehicle where that vehicles bumber was at knee level or head level?

So, I would say that my SUV is probably as environmentally friendly if not moreso than most cars and definately safer in most situations (except rollovers of course)
 
I don't know how you can own a home, have an active lifestyle, or have pets and not need a truck or SUV.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean it's not possible. Every single one of the physicians I work for owns a home, has an active lifestyle, supports a family, and has pets. The closest thing any of them has to an SUV is a Volvo station wagon. Body on frame vehicles are not necessary to lead any kind of active lifestyle

And SUVs tend to last longer too, which creates less waste, less landfill, and consumes less resources making new ones every couple years. I'd be shocked if my SUV didn't last 10 years or more with minor work. I'd be shocked if typical modern plastic cars even made it 10 years without complete overhauls.
Click to expand...
Then prepare to be shocked. Trucks do not have a tendancy to last longer than cars given the same maintenance. Your SUV will certainly last a decade or so with decent care but so will a Honda Civic or Toyota Camry. Your SUV will probably last as long as a Camry simply because it's a Toyota. A GM or Ford doesn't stand that same chance.

I find it funny that people complain about "typical modern plastic cars" when they are built more reliably, more efficiently, more comfortably, and - most importantly - safer than cars of yesteryear and many of the body on frame vehicles sold today. The safest truck on the road is the Honda Ridgeline (though it barely passes as a truck in the first place...lord knows I wouldn't trust it to tow anything).

Those "plastic cars" are the safest vehicles on the roads, not monster SUVs. Crumple zones exist for a reason. In my opinion that's far more important than the fact they're more energy efficient.
 
I'll bet people aren't going to like what I have to say about gas prices...

I say let them go as high as the market will support...there are lots of benefits from this...like:

1. People might actually think before they just get in a car to drive somewhere...maybe they will actually 'plan out' their errands so as to be more efficient. Who knows, maybe they'll even carpool!

2. This means fewer cars on the road...which translates to less traffic (even if only slightly) and less air pollution.

3. Maybe people will finally think about buying more efficient vehicles.

4. Maybe people will finally think about living closer to where they work.

These are just a few things that I can think of while sitting here in about 2 minutes time...I'm sure there are more...

To those who whine about the rising cost of fuel...Do something about it! You can reduce your own dependency on oil even if others aren't.

I know that I'm probably going to be flamed for this post and called a liberal, etc...(which I am not)...but some things just make sense...and reducing our dependency on oil is one of them.
 
Redworm said:
That doesn't mean it's not possible. Every single one of the physicians I work for owns a home, has an active lifestyle, supports a family, and has pets. The closest thing any of them has to an SUV is a Volvo station wagon. Body on frame vehicles are not necessary to lead any kind of active lifestyle
Click to expand...
Perhaps they are doing so well, financially-speaking, they don't need to sully their hands with moving a dryer or picking up lumber for Lowes? I can not afford to have a lot of stuff done to my house, so I am the plumber, landscaper, fence builder, bathroom remodeler, what have you. Without a pickup truck, none of that would be do-able.

Also, how many of the physicians are the outdoorsy type? By "outdoorsy," I don't mean "Plays golf outdoors." I mean, goes camping, fishing, hunting, etc.

How do you define, "Safe?" By its X-star crash rating? That rating is pretty much useless, given that it assumes you will be smashing into the same type vehicle you are driving. they do not do an objective test, such as the car getting hit by a 4000lb vehicle.

Some of those "5-star crash rating" small cars would perform much more poorly than a mediocre larger car. Force=Mass*Acceleration; Acceleration=Force/Mass. The more mass the struck vehicle has, the less the acceleration, given the same force. IOW, what breaks your neck & kills you in a Honda Civic, would give the guy in the Suburban a good scare and a sore neck.

I would be dollars to doughnuts that if a Honda Ridgeline and a Ford Excursion met at a significant speed, the Excursion's passengers would be more likely to come out uninjured.
 
Perhaps they are doing so well, financially-speaking, they don't need to sully their hands with moving a dryer or picking up lumber for Lowes? I can not afford to have a lot of stuff done to my house, so I am the plumber, landscaper, fence builder, bathroom remodeler, what have you. Without a pickup truck, none of that would be do-able.

Also, how many of the physicians are the outdoorsy type? By "outdoorsy," I don't mean "Plays golf outdoors." I mean, goes camping, fishing, hunting, etc.
Click to expand...
Yet the fact remains not everyone has to do these things on their own. Not everyone wants to. I'm sure there are people with smaller incomes that both you and I that don't have the skill set to do those kinds of things and still pay others to do it. Some people are too busy. The point is that one can live a perfectly normal and active life without any kind of body-on-frame vehicle.
How do you define, "Safe?" By its X-star crash rating? That rating is pretty much useless, given that it assumes you will be smashing into the same type vehicle you are driving. they do not do an objective test, such as the car getting hit by a 4000lb vehicle.
Click to expand...
NHSTA ratings do not assume smashing into the same type of vehicle. They assume very little, in fact. Crash tests are done with numerous variables and are typically quite accurate at determining how well occupants will be protected in a vehicle in the event of a crash.

Some of those "5-star crash rating" small cars would perform much more poorly than a mediocre larger car. Force=Mass*Acceleration; Acceleration=Force/Mass. The more mass the struck vehicle has, the less the acceleration, given the same force. IOW, what breaks your neck & kills you in a Honda Civic, would give the guy in the Suburban a good scare and a sore neck.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that you understand the physics behind it but you're forgetting the most important aspect. All that force is going to be transferred through the point of least resistance. In a truck that point is the human occupants while in a unibody vehicle with crumple zones the path of least resistance is the vehicle.

Be it against a smaller vehicle, a larger vehicle, or a solid object a vehicle with crumple zones is safer than a vehicle without.
I would be dollars to doughnuts that if a Honda Ridgeline and a Ford Excursion met at a significant speed, the Excursion's passengers would be more likely to come out uninjured.
Click to expand...
Then I hope you're prepared to lose your money or pastries. :p The Excursion has been built on the same Ford truck platform since the late 90s and that platform is considered one of the most unsafe the auto industry has ever seen.

http://www.leasetips.com/f150crashtest.htm
 
Two points:

Whether I remodel my kitchen myself or hire someone else to come a do it, SOMEBODY in a truck needs go get materials and make trips to my home. So there is no savings in gasoline.

Under almost any circumstances I'd rather be in an SUV than a regular or compact car in an auto accident. It's sheer physics. I don't care whether you include crumple zones in the equation. Crash tests are assuming the vehicle impacts a similar size/weight vehicle or a stationary object. These aren't real life impacts of two vehicles of different sizes. Since about 1/2 of vehicles are truck/SUVs if you're in a car and there's a collision you're at a big disadvantage. The frame isn't as strong, parts are plastic instead of metal, and you don't have as much room in your passenger compartment.
 
Whether I remodel my kitchen myself or hire someone else to come a do it, SOMEBODY in a truck needs go get materials and make trips to my home. So there is no savings in gasoline.
Click to expand...
There is if that someone is delivering multiple loads in one trip or has a more efficient vehicle than you. Also the bottom line is that the individual who chose to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle is saving money in the long run. Unless of course you remodel your kitchen on a daily basis.

Under almost any circumstances I'd rather be in an SUV than a regular or compact car in an auto accident. It's sheer physics. I don't care whether you include crumple zones in the equation. Crash tests are assuming the vehicle impacts a similar size/weight vehicle or a stationary object. These aren't real life impacts of two vehicles of different sizes. Since about 1/2 of vehicles are truck/SUVs if you're in a car and there's a collision you're at a big disadvantage. The frame isn't as strong, parts are plastic instead of metal, and you don't have as much room in your passenger compartment.
Click to expand...
If you'd rather be in an SUV than with all due respect you're just choosing to ignore the most important part of the issue - the crumple zones. Body on frame vehicles are inherently less safe than unibody vehicles because they cannot be built with the same level of crumple zones. Crumple zones save lives while stiff frames needed for towing and hauling transfer the energy of the impact to the softest thing in the vehicle - YOU. Again, crash tests do not "assume" that. There are many more variables involved.

The frame is equally as strong but is centered around protecting the occupant, not the vehicle. For example in a brand new Jetta or Camry or whatnot you'll have a very stiff frame around the cabin designed to withstand high impacts. The engine, fuel tank, and electrical systems are also somewhat protected to avoid fires and/or explosions. But the rest of the vehicle is designed to absorb the energy of the crash so it doesn't affect the occupants. In a truck those same crumple zones cannot be implemented and thus all that energy is going to end up in the point of least resistance: the human beings inside.

Another thing, there are just as many plastic parts in your SUV as in a Camry and there are just as many metal parts in a Camry as in your SUV. As to the amount of space in the passenger compartment I highly doubt you can make a case for a few square inches being that important. Besides, my truck has more space in the passenger compartment than a 4Runner yet yours is safer because you have better crumple zones.

Think about it: if these engineers didn't think that crumple zones saved lives then they wouldn't have designed them into cars.

It's sheer physics.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, that's exactly what you're ignoring. There's more to physics than the equation for force.
 
In most accidents I have seen that were truck/vs car, the truck(1/2 ton) won.

Over a 50 year period of owning vehicles trucks last longer with same maintenance, I can only relate my experience however I trust it more then
test in a lab.
 
SUVs are one big reason gas is up. 8000lbs and 90% of the time I see one person in these oversized smog boxes.

What impact on do these massive machines have as far as beating our roads to death faster, not to mention any one who gets hit by one of these oversized eye sores.

Im sure the Saudis love and laugh at us all the same. The sad part is we all pay more for gas now.
 
In most accidents I have seen that were truck/vs car, the truck(1/2 ton) won.

Over a 50 year period of owning vehicles trucks last longer with same maintenance, I can only relate my experience however I trust it more then
test in a lab.
Click to expand...
For the majority of those 50 years cars were built as badly as trucks are today in terms of safety. Crumple zones didn't become commonplace until a couple decades ago.

Trust your experience all you want but when my life is in question I'm going to trust the hundreds of engineers that have put in thousands of man hours and the billions that have been spent on automotive safety research.

It simply doesn't matter which vehicle wins; the vehicles are unimportant. What matters is which occupants are better protected and divertying energy around the occupants as opposed to into them is always going to be a better form of protection.
 
I find it funny that many here are violently opposed to the government meddling in private enterprise and business ...... until it hits them in the wallet and gas tank.

Government stay out! *Unless you're saving me money
 
Cars are MUCH worse at occupant safety in the real world

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety here are some interesting facts:

"A total of 21,838 passenger vehicle drivers died in 2004, down 2 percent from 2003 but 13 percent more than in 1975. Sixty-four percent of passenger vehicle driver deaths in 2004 were car drivers...."

"Passenger vehicle occupant deaths represented 74 percent of the 42,636 motor vehicle crash deaths in 2004. ..."

"Forty-one percent of car occupant deaths in 2004 occurred in single-vehicle crashes and 59 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, single-vehicle crashes accounted for 65 percent of SUV occupant deaths and 59 percent of pickup occupant deaths. ..." Interpret this as meaning that trucks are safer than cars when involved in multiple vehicle accidents because 59% of the deaths from accidents in cars were multi-vehicle but only 35% deaths in SUVs were multi-vehicle.

"For each vehicle type (car, pickup, SUV), the rates of driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles in 2004 were highest for the smallest and lightest vehicles..."

"Multiple-vehicle crashes accounted for 39 driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles in 2004, while there were also 39 deaths per million in single-vehicle crashes. In single-vehicle crashes, pickups had the highest number of deaths per registered vehicle (66 per million) in 2004. In multiple-vehicle crashes, cars had the highest number of deaths per registered vehicle (44 per million), and SUVs had the lowest number of deaths per registered vehicle (25 per million)...."

"A total of 10,511 passenger vehicle occupants died in rollover crashes in 2004. More than three-fourths of fatal rollovers are single-vehicle crashes. Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 49 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2004, compared with 36 percent of occupant deaths in pickups and 19 percent in cars..."

I think this is quite compelling evidence that SUVs are safer than cars (in addition to their greater utility for most people). SUVs do have a greater rollover rate and also greater single vehicle crash fatality rate (likely as a result of rollover). However, that's really the only drawback. Since rollovers account for about 25% of fatalities, and there's a decent chance of survival in a rollover, I prefer the SUV over the car for the survival and utility and convenience. I'll pay the additional few dollars in gas costs for that.

Edited to add: If the anti-SUV crowd REALLY wanted to be upset with another group, it should be the "sports car" or "hot rod" car crowd. Talk about a waste of resources -- race tracks, tricked out vehicles often with big engines that guzzel gasoline and waste it cruising around. They serve ZERO purpose and are purely for pleasure. They may dually serve as commuter vehicles, but often they are just for show.
 
Last edited:
I thought we just had a thread on the danger of statistics.

Many of those numbers aren't related directly to the total number of vehicles. Since there are still more cars than trucks, one would expect more car accidents, total.


SUVs are more likely to get you through a multicar accident. They are also more likely to cause it (that's why the single vehicle accidents are so high), and their large mass does more damage to other cars then themselves.

Conclusion? Large, unstable SUVs are less controllable, roll over easier and when they do let go around other cars kill more people than if all vehicles were a more similar mass.

I drive a sporty, modern car because it not only protects me better from a direct impact than a truck, but it is more maneuverable, brakes better and is much more likely to avoid accidents in the first place.


If you subscribe to the SUV for safety idea, I recommend you get the absolute biggest one you can, because that way no amount of other vehicles will stop you when you careen out of control. A dump truck would be ideal.
 
Size matters

We started talking about gas, and wound up talking about suv/trucks vs small cars in crashes. You can talk about "crumple zones" or "body on frame construction" or "how much plastic is in whatever", but here is my real world observation.

When a ping pong ball gets hit by a bowling ball at highway speed, the ping pong balls is toast.

I know this for a fact. My wife and kids were in the ping pong ball.
 
I survived a car (60mph)/ 1/2 t. truck (30mph) corner to corner head-on. I was driving a 1992 Toyota Camry, no airbags, automatic shoulder strap/manual lap belt. The truck was a 1985 Ford. I saw (and felt) the effect of "crumple zones". I never lost consciousness and was able to stop with the emergency brake 15 feet short of an Amish family reunion.:o

The passenger 1/3 front of the Camry hit squarely on the pass. 1/3 front of the truck. If I would have had a passenger in the Camry they would have survived if it wasn't for the bug guard on the front of the truck turned spear and penetrated the windshield and the passenger seat. Every panel on the car was crumpled, passenger compartment basically intact, minor cuts and contusions and 6" wide purple bruise from the seat belt.

The truck passengers both spent the night in the hospital getting neck/back x-rays. IMO if it would have been a full on head-on I and the truck passengers would be dead.

I currently have a 1991 Camry 4 cyl. we use for beating around. 30mpg on the highway we use our SUV or truck when needed otherwise we use the Camry.

I trust the crumple zone technology used by Toyota.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top