$5.00 per gallon gas strategy

Red Brown said:

Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears...

A majority of the price paid for a gallon of gasoline that you and I pay for comes directly from the wholesale price of crude oil, which is refined to make gasoline and other petroleum products.

As we all know, crude oil is a globally-traded commodity. On net, the United States imports 45 percent of the crude oil it consumes. Even individual investors can buy not only oil stocks but ETF's that mimic the price of crude oil, so if you want to benefit from the higher prices, you guys might consider such investment products.

GLOBAL Oil demand - World crude oil and liquid fuels consumption grew to the highest level ever in 2011, with an estimated 87.9 million barrels per day (bpd) consumed in total. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that total world oil consumption will grow by 1.3 million bpd during 2012 and 1.5 million bpd in 2013 with countries outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) comprising most of the growth in consumption.

Now with regards to what specfic US policies might impact gasoline prices...one can point to U.S. Monetary Policy i.w. weakening the Dollar – In 2008, commodity prices (like food and fuel like we have discussed before) surged with the initial Federal Reserve interest rate cuts and increase in the monetary supply. This increase is precipitated by investors choosing to secure their finances with non-income generating real assets, like oil and precious metals, in the face of inflation and a devalued dollar. QE1234 also helped a bit too...

Let's not forget taxes which is a whopping 48 percent or so of gallon of gas.

The third cost to factor into the price of gasoline is the refining process, where crude oil is “cracked” and formulated into its chemical components and made into gasoline. In January 2012, refinery costs comprised 6 percent of the retail price of gasoline.

So really, the Iran factor - geopolitical risk and just plain increased demand, especially from emerging markets is a the biggest factor in the rise of crude. Those that think that by magically replacing Obama, we will have a significant respite from high gasoline prices are in a state of delusion. The only real adjustment might be gasoline taxes I mentioned, I don't know how they can be reduced without impacting the revenue raising function they serve.

Remember Newt Gingrich said recently if elected, he would make gasoline prices would drop the to the mid 2.00's. Does anyone believe that?



Chunky Monkey

RB

Click to expand...

Federal and state tax on a gallon of gas is 38.5 cents in Texas, hardly 48 percent. The article you linked is in cents, not percent.

Soly said:

Snagged this from Wikipedia

Starting in 2011 the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle "footprint", a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle’s wheelbase by its average track width. CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a bigger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint. For example, the 2012 Honda Fit with a footprint of 40 sq ft (3.7 m2) must achieve fuel economy (as measured for CAFE) of 36 miles per US gallon (6.5 l/100 km), equivalent to a published fuel economy of 27 miles per US gallon (8.7 l/100 km), while a Ford F-150 with its footprint of 65–75 sq ft (6.0–7.0 m2) must achieve CAFE fuel economy of 22 miles per US gallon (11 l/100 km), i.e., 17 miles per US gallon (14 l/100 km) published.

CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks", despite the majority of "light trucks" actually being used as passenger cars. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011. More than 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the 8,500 lb (3,900 kg) GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted from CAFE calculations.

Here is the link to the whole article if anyone is interested.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the informative post. It sounds like a F150 might lose the big engine but I can tell you that the old I6 they had was plenty torquey. It was near those numbers 30 years ago. I bet they could do 17/22 with 300 horses today.

OK, slide sidetrack here but it seems to me that the best engine design ever has been an inline 6. I had a Chevy truck with one, a Ford truck, and a BMW 328i and all were incredibly reliable with plenty of pep. I used to pull skid steers with the Ford with no problem at all.

We loaded cattle and took them to market. The F150 was an inline 300 six and had much more torque than the 302 V8 offered at the same time. I don't know why they ever dropped that engine - must be a pollution problem.

SL350 said:

We loaded cattle and took them to market. The F150 was an inline 300 six and had much more torque than the 302 V8 offered at the same time. I don't know why they ever dropped that engine - must be a pollution problem.

Click to expand...

Most likely for the same reason you can't buy a good sport tourer with less than a litre motor. Bigger engines are more macho and all that.

I learned to drive a stick in a 1972 Ford pickup with that 300 straight 6. Best motor ever.

Straight six with 3 on the tree does that every bring back memories. Seems like the things we make that work right get dumped on by the EPA, DOT, congress or whatever as bad.

STman said:

..... Part of the problem is tighter security for Obama since threats are much higher than they were under Bush. ...

Click to expand...

So much for that factoid.
Discredited by the Director of the Secret Service. That story originally came from a guy named Kessler He was trying to sell books.

GW Bush pretty much spent his "vacation" time at his rural ranch. I put vacation in quotes because there really is no such thing as a vacation for the president. He even quit playing golf after the war began.
As mediocre as Jimmy Carter was as a president, I have to give him credit for conspicious non consumption while in office.
I don't think there was ever a president who burned more tons of fuel in Air Force One to go on high dollar vacations/fund raisers than Obama.

I had that 6 in my 1980 F150 and it had two tanks. Range was 700+ miles, it was bought soon after the long gas lines from the Saudi Embargo. The truck carried any load and was great for towing but it was winding hard and probably would have needed another gear if we had the 75mph limits. Who knows, maybe all those years that the speed limit was 55 might be part of why we all liked that engine - maybe the higher mph wears our newer engines faster.

SL350 said:

I had that 6 in my 1980 F150 and it had two tanks. Range was 700+ miles, it was bought soon after the long gas lines from the Saudi Embargo. The truck carried any load and was great for towing but it was winding hard and probably would have needed another gear if we had the 75mph limits. Who knows, maybe all those years that the speed limit was 55 might be part of why we all liked that engine - maybe the higher mph wears our newer engines faster.

Click to expand...

The '72 my step-dad had was a Ranger Camper Special. It had an overdrive. The cable operated one. You would pull the cable out (like a choke) and then, without hitting the clutch, let off the throttle for 2 seconds or so, and it would shift from third into overdrive. Strangest thing I've ever seen for a manual transmission. It didn't seem too wound out at 70. That truck was what I took my first several dates out in, before I got my wittle-bitty Mazda.

Ben Eberle said:

GW Bush pretty much spent his "vacation" time at his rural ranch. I put vacation in quotes because there really is no such thing as a vacation for the president. He even quit playing golf after the war began.
As mediocre as Jimmy Carter was as a president, I have to give him credit for conspicious non consumption while in office.
I don't think there was ever a president who burned more tons of fuel in Air Force One to go on high dollar vacations/fund raisers than Obama.

Click to expand...

Can we please drop the overt politics in this thread?

YoDoc said:

The '72 my step-dad had was a Ranger Camper Special. It had an overdrive. The cable operated one. You would pull the cable out (like a choke) and then, without hitting the clutch, let off the throttle for 2 seconds or so, and it would shift from third into overdrive. Strangest thing I've ever seen for a manual transmission. It didn't seem too wound out at 70. That truck was what I took my first several dates out in, before I got my wittle-bitty Mazda.

Click to expand...

We had one of those overdrives in a 59 Ford. Really a good idea and it dropped the ratio significantly. I didn't know they were still around in 1972 and I wonder if there is a reason to put one in now to lower rpms on some trucks geared to tow? Are they available today?

When I was in high school, I could fill the tank of my car with a five dollar bill, and it hurt. I didn't do a whole lot of joy riding because I couldn't afford to. One of the reasons I was attracted to motorcycles was because their gas milage allowed me to go places.
Today's cars get much better gas mileage than the cars of the sixties but todays motorcycles get the same or worse than the bikes of the sixties. Those old Honda 90's and even the 305's got much better gas mileage than any car that could be had in the sixties. Even my old two stroke Bridgestone 175 twin delivered 50+ mpg.

Really, we are about overdue for $5/gallon gas considering the prices of everything else. There are no conspiracies, there are no evil guys, sometimes things happen because of the actions of millions of thousandaires, not the actions of a handful of billionaires. It's like no individual snowflake thinks it's responsible for the avalanche.

Ben, due for $5 gas or not, it is killing our recovery.

I don't know if they're still available. I think it was part of the transmission on that 72. I know we had to replace the tranny in the truck three times, and in the end, we finally sold it to a dirt midget racer (as opposed to a midget dirt racer... ) for about$1200 because he REALLY wanted that Dayna 9in rear end that was in that truck...

We have done the math on running bikes vs cars but let me add my ct90 to the calculations. It was getting 108 on the stock carb but I changed to a China carb and now get 100 mpg. Last month I changed the rear tire and tube and replaced the rear brake pads at the same time. Total cost is well under $100. Insurance for the ct90 and sl350 now that I dropped the other bike is $92/year. The ct90 can't do everything but I put between 800 and 1500 miles a year on it. That is usually 2 mile trips and I am real happy to knock those stop starts off the minivan and the Ram 1500.

It might need an overhaul in the next few years and the cost of a piston and rings, gaskets and all - less than $100. Maybe a chain every 5 years ($20).

Try it, you might like it.

Wonder how many cub 50s exist in asia?

Sent via tapawhatever

I don't really look at it as gas suddenly being expensive but rather as an end of an era of near record cheap gas that spoiled us for most of the '90s and early 2000's.
My strategy. I have nearly stopped all motorcycle riding just for the sake of a joy ride. All my bike rides are destination oriented, I ride because I have to go somewhere, I don't go somewhere just to ride. That doesn't mean that I don't occasionally take the scenic route, in fact I usually get better mpg on the back roads than on the highway.
I rediscovered that I live very close to a beautiful lake and that I have a small sailboat and often spent a day on it instead of making $20 disappear by going noplace in particular with my motorcycle.
I rediscovered my old hobby of flying RC airplanes and often spent a day at the RC club instead of making $20 or so dollars disappear by going no place in particular with my motorcycle.
I'm still living life, I'm still having fun, I just replaced expensive entertainment with inexpensive entertainment, and entertainment accounts for a lot of our expenditures.
Substituting inexpensive entertainment for expensive entertainment is the low hanging fruit of living within your means.

Even with todays gas prices, stopping at Burger King for a quick breakfast and coffee costs more than the gas my bike burns for my ride to work.

Ben Eberle said:

I don't really look at it as gas suddenly being expensive but rather as an end of an era of near record cheap gas that spoiled us for most of the '90s and early 2000's.
My strategy. I have nearly stopped all motorcycle riding just for the sake of a joy ride. All my bike rides are destination oriented, I ride because I have to go somewhere, I don't go somewhere just to ride. That doesn't mean that I don't occasionally take the scenic route, in fact I usually get better mpg on the back roads than on the highway.
I rediscovered that I live very close to a beautiful lake and that I have a small sailboat and often spent a day on it instead of making $20 disappear by going noplace in particular with my motorcycle.
I rediscovered my old hobby of flying RC airplanes and often spent a day at the RC club instead of making $20 or so dollars disappear by going no place in particular with my motorcycle.
I'm still living life, I'm still having fun, I just replaced expensive entertainment with inexpensive entertainment, and entertainment accounts for a lot of our expenditures.
Substituting inexpensive entertainment for expensive entertainment is the low hanging fruit of living within your means.

Even with todays gas prices, stopping at Burger King for a quick breakfast and coffee costs more than the gas my bike burns for my ride to work.

Click to expand...

Well said. There was some representative on the news not long ago whining about the cost of gas. Guess he didn't notice the irony in the fact he was filling up a big SUV.

Considering we import over 60% our oil, I think it is quite patriotic to use less of it so it always makes me laugh when I see an American Flag on the back of a gas guzzler.

Here's to living within your means and shooting the bird to the middle east!

Ben Eberle said:

...Even with todays gas prices, stopping at Burger King for a quick breakfast and coffee costs more than the gas my bike burns for my ride to work.

Click to expand...

I do wonder how many people stop and think about that coffee and breakfast they grab every morning on their way in to work.

I may eat out a lot for lunch, but dangit, I do realize what that does for my pocketbook. USAA does a good job of pointing out with a pie chart how much of my money goes towards different categories.

xcgates said:

I may eat out a lot for lunch, but dangit, I do realize what that does for my pocketbook. USAA does a good job of pointing out with a pie chart how much of my money goes towards different categories.

Click to expand...

I love this feature of USAA. Actually, it's what finally got me to stop smoking... mostly...

First time I really started categorizing what I spent really woke me up to where my money went. Not entirely what I would have guessed.

The old overdrive transmissions were a second transmission bolted to the back of the first. Then came the overdrive transmissions that integrated the overdrive into the normal shift pattern. Though there are differences in use procedures, the net result is the same. Some new transmissions actually have 2 overdrive ratios. Relatively lightweight vehicles with torquey engines do benefit from the overdrive ratios. Relatively heavy vehicles with high-winding engines may actually lose efficiency with an overdrive. As with most good ideas, more isn't always better.

As far as using overdrives in vehicles that sometimes tow or haul, and sometimes don't, significant gains in unloaded efficiency and/or towing performance can be enjoyed with a wider overall transmission ratio spread. I know two brothers who towed identical 36-foot 5th-wheel RVs with F350 turbodiesels identical except for rear axle ratios. One truck (4.10 gears) hauled the RV quite well, returned about 11mpg towing, and about 14mpg empty. The other (3:1) definately lagged behind while towing, returned 9mpg towing, but returned 19mpg running empty. The boys fit auxilary transmissions to both trucks, the hauler got an auxilary overdrive, the mpg champ an auxilary underdrive. With the overall gearing of both trucks about the same with the auxilary transmissions, both hauled well when loaded and returned high mpg when empty.

Back in the olden days I had a 1966 Ford Econoline cargo van with a 170cid 6-banger and 3-on-the-tree. I used it to pull a 3600-pound boat and trailer. It did okay on the flat roads of Miami, but I could smell the clutch burning when pulling the boat up launch ramps. I shortened the driveshaft to fit a 3-speed from behind a 360 V8 from a F250 behind the original trans and the little 170 would yank that boat out of the water with ease. Of course, 1st-1st wound out to about 2.1mph. A coworker had a 1966 Fairlane that came from the factory with a 3.90 axle ratio. He swapped the high-winding 289 for a torque monster 428, and lost top end. An overdrive turned the car into a high speed monster.

Lesson to learn is that overall gear ratios have a huge effect on performance and efficiency. Modern vehicles are geared to excel on the dyno test that determines the efficiency ratings posted in the window. My experience is that most are geared too high for the real world, especially when operated under high load conditions.