The Chrysler Minivan Fan Club Forums banner

61 - 80 of 81 Posts

·
Mustang Lover
Joined
·
460 Posts
Ineffecient vehicles?

Effeciency has certainly improved. Unfortunatley size/weight along with horsepower to move stated size and weight has increased as well.

Mike
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
I took a drive up to my farms in North West Iowa. Of course, I was in my 2005 Chevy 2500 with the 8.1L V8 and the Allison trans, however, I think the seed I was hauling made the use of the vehicle worth while.

Anyway, I noticed more Toyota Prius's on the road today than I have in the past year. Many did not even have plates on them yet. The vehicluar choice of US residents is changing, whether you want to believe it or not.

The town I base my farming operation out of has a parking lot that has many vehicles for sale. Of these, 4 were pickup trucks, one was a Suburban that has been there since December, and the other two items where a boat and a camping trailer. Not a car for sale in sight.

The large vehicles are being dumped left and right.
 

·
Certified Minivan Freak
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
IAfarmer said:
The large vehicles are being dumped left and right.
And I think your statement that the market is taking care of this is correct. The local Ford dealer is selling loaded up Expeditions (new) for under $30k...almost getting competitive with DCX minivans. Years ago, these Expeditions would go for $10k more.
 

·
Senior Global Moderator
Joined
·
2,800 Posts
icatfishman said:
I do not mind being opinionated, but I hate to cite wrong numbers. Regardless. It alters nothing. Inefficient vehicles need to pay a surcharge. I really have nothing more to say on this issue.
You haven't answered Jason's question yet,and I think it's the most important question raised in this thread. Do you propose to charge this tax on vehicles using E85? Like I said, on E85 I get better gas mileage than a Toyota Prius, if we're just talking about the amount of gasoline used. Do you still categorize my Caravan as a "gas guzzler" if I am using less petroleum than your Jetta does?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
I thought I had done my job but I clearly have more to do

Hi all,

The answer I am going to give to one of our musical friends re: Jason, is a bit more complicated than I had planned but here I go.

My son is responsible for running the group at one of the major oil companies responsible for retail pricing of fuel sold to jobbers in the midwest.

We happened to speak today about an unrelated issue but I asked him specifically about the sales of "85" and he said "It is both a political and a geographic issue involving governments and usage. Not really viable".

I read that as, local governments DO NOT want fuel prices to go down since their revenue is based on a percentage of gross at the pump price. Part 2 is keep the corn producers happy.

So...until there is the desire (not coming rapidly from the market) or necessity (again too slow a decrease in efficient car sales), something MUST be done to force change to happen. Hence, my original posting.

Friendship to all posting here.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
So, if E85 isn't viable, why is it that Brazil uses it almost exclusively. Why are we seeing countries like Sweden moving towards E85.

Anyone associated with Big Oil refuses to believe that E85 has a future.
 

·
Senior Global Moderator
Joined
·
2,800 Posts
E85 is completely viable, but the change takes time. Look at Brazil. With increased compression ratios, something like E85 could meet or exceed current fuel economy with gasoline engines.

Expansion of Ethanol is the key. You've got to produce enough to make it cost-effective. As it is now, it's not really viable. But when it's cost-effective, consumers will demand it.
 

·
Certified Minivan Freak
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
No offense to your son or your family, but one would expect big oil to say just that. In fact, look at this thread here:

http://forum.chryslerminivan.net/showthread.php?t=3354

ExxonMobil. Big oil! They're saying that it's "impossible" for us to "wean ourselves" from petroleum and that, in fact, we outta be SUPPORTING energy interdependence.

No kidding!

One would EXPECT big oil to say ethanol isn't viable because they DON'T SELL ANY. Big oil would LOVE IT if we all believed that ethanol wasn't viable. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for them, we don't all believe that, and we know it's dead wrong. There are too many real world examples to prove that.

What they OUGHT to be doing is working WITH the ethanol industry to get their feet in the door and actually start HELPING them produce ethanol with their chemistry background, and taking ADVANTAGE of this emerging market. But no, instead, they're actually BANNING retail station owners who sell gas under their name from selling ANY alternative fuel. What they ARE doing is dragging their feet, turning their heads from the future and pretending it's not there, and they'll end up on the losing end.

http://forum.chryslerminivan.net/showthread.php?t=3642

This is a prime example of it. My apologies that the article has been moved off their public domain website to a subscriber-only archive section. But the point remains. Bill Smith, a local Ford dealer owner, also owned an Exxon station in town. He had to break his contract or relationship or whatever it was with Exxon, physically REMOVE their name from his station, just so he could start selling alternative fuel.

Again, imagine that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #69
Duh! That was my point. Pretty clearly, they like selling what they make which is petroleum. Anyone reading this thread who does not believe that government intervention into alternative fuels funding and development is necessary to make any changes is NUTS. The government MUST FORCE ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND CONSERVATION DOWN OUR THROATS or it ain't going to happen quickly. Sorry folks, that is how it is!
 

·
Certified Minivan Freak
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
icatfishman said:
Anyone reading this thread who does not believe that government intervention into alternative fuels funding and development is necessary to make any changes is NUTS. The government MUST FORCE ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND CONSERVATION DOWN OUR THROATS or it ain't going to happen quickly.
You have two separate statements here:

"Anyone reading this thread who does not believe that government intervention into alternative fuels funding and development is necessary to make any changes is NUTS."

and

"The government MUST FORCE ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND CONSERVATION DOWN OUR THROATS or it ain't going to happen quickly."

I disagree with the first and agree with the second.

First off, let's leave the personal insults off this forum. If we don't agree with you, that doesn't make us "NUTS". It simply means we disagree, and so far, we've done so with civilized conversation.

The government has been pretty relaxed on pushing alternative fuel infrastructure thus far. I believe that, and I certainly think you do as well. The biggest "step" they've made in this direction is mandating flex fuel vehicles for their fleets. That IS a good (and necessary) first step. No matter how many alternative fuel pumps ya got, you're not going to move any of it if nobody can use it. The reason I disagree with your first statement is because changes ARE happening, despite the government's relative lack of involvement. There's a TON of privately-funded money out there and it's being used everyday. A good case in point is a local fuel distributor (separate from Bill Smith Ford that I previously mentioned). They are using a $25k grant from the NEVC to fund infrastructure changes to their station to be able to sell ethanol. None of that grant money is federal. It's all from (guess who?) ethanol-producing companies, looking to get the product out there. There is very little governmental intervention going on, yet ethanol production is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. Domestic auto makers have responded well to a government mandate from YEARS ago that their fleet vehicles be flex fuel. A good percentage of domestic vehicles sold today are flex fuel capable, and the number, and percentage, will only increase from here.

As an aside, I do think the government is taking a more proactive approach to this (without bringing the "tax" issue into the fold). If you take a look at the actual E85 locations throughout the United States, a good many of them are actually at federal facilities, and more are being added everyday. One of our AAFES stations on Fort Bragg will be online by the summer. And part of the executive order that mandates flex fuel use in government fleet vehicles says that all civilians, affiliated with the military or not, are allowed to purchase that fuel. Normally, you need to be active duty, retired, or somehow affiliated with the military to purchase fuel at AAFES, or any other gov't filling station. There is an exception to policy for alternative fuels.

And I do agree with your second statement...in that if government were to force the issue, it would probably happen quicker. However, I disagree with your premise...that it HAS to happen NOW. It's okay if it doesn't happen by sunrise tomorrow. I'm in complete agreement that a better and more sustainable fuel is the way to the future, and that's why I'm such a big supporter of alternative fuel. But this is where we also differ on the political issue...regarding what the government's role SHOULD be or SHOULDN'T be, but we've hashed that out before, and it doesn't need repeating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #71
Puhleze... It has taken 40 years of badgering for the auto industry to improve...

fuel efficiency to a very minor degree. In my opinion, forty more years of stonewalling will not cut it. Either you agree that there is a real problem that MUST be addressed and acted upon immediately or you do not. It really is not about degrees of ignoring the issue. If one perceives there is a problem, you correct it.

I happen to think 40 years of lipservice has been enough.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
There is no such thing as instant change.

I am watching a gradual change where I live. A multitude of Ethanol plants are under construction. More and more SUV's are being traded in for smaller cars. People at work are riding together now.

I saw more bicylces on the road today than I ever have. I know these people are not the die hards due to the fact that the bicycles were Walmart specials, not $500 specialty road bikes. Also, everyone was wearing a backback, telling me there was a purpose to the ride. Check the bike rack at your Walmart. You will see it is rather empty.

The change is happening. You just need to lose the agenda and remove the blinders.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,760 Posts
Gentlemen, I think we know where each of you ,and everyone else stands on these subjects. This forum is a great 'Discussion' media and I am proud of the way the membership uses it. While we sometimes may beable to sway or even convince a member of our convictions over thiers, it does not always happen. I think that we are getting close to the end of this subject. The members of this forum respect each other and I like it that way. I know we have been accused of not "getting to the nitty gritty and not being controversial enough" when it comes to our SPIRITED DISCUSSIONS. That is ok with me, because alot of times that causes hard feelings among members, no matter what they say. I think all your opinions are worthy of discussion and they are especially enlightening as we come from the diverse fields of employment and various area's of this great continent. Again, THAT is what makes this group so great.
I can't say that we should STOP THIS THREAD however I would hope that we can agree to disagree and let it mellow out. EVERYONE is entitled to thier own opinion and we will always have different ones. THAT is why we are here.
Thanks again everyone.
 

·
Certified Minivan Freak
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
DSMLVR, thanks for the note. Sometimes it takes a "third party", or someone who hasn't been emotionally drawn into the discussion to recognize when a topic has been drawn out close to its limit.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Aww, but dad.......

Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.

Howard W. Newton
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Thank you for the article. I do enjoy supplemental information to a person's opinion. However, what is discussed in the article is much different than what you are proposing. I didn't see any mention of taxes or fees for vehicle size.

If I could buy a minivan that would get 45 MPG on E-85, I would be all over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #78
My case has been made and I have nothing else to say other than the issue is being written about in the Cleveland Plain Dealer so the general concept is likely to become quite public beyond THIS forum.
 

·
Certified Minivan Freak
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
Humorous how that article is written by the Sierra Club. It's also interesting how they assert that the nation could be using 50% less gasoline today if our cars were more efficient. And they say that after blowing off alternative fuels, which could curb our gasoline usage by a much greater margin.

Sounds about right coming out of the Sierra Club...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
My god man. Thats incredible. First your attacking and punishing the WRONG end of this equation.

The Culprits are auto makers the victums are us consumers. How about using that big stick your swinging and attack the AUTO MAKERS and not us VICTUMS!! Ouch man!

You want to fix the problem? if I in some fairy land somehow became president here would be my objectives.

Task #1

I would REVOKE the patent that GM sold to Chevron via Texaco that they REFUSE to license and are using to PREVENT the proliferation of NIMH powered Battery Electric cars (IE the useful affordable ones)

Task #2

All Automakers would have 1 year to put a prototype on the road 2 years to start SELLING battery electric cars to my specifications.

Those specifications would basically be as follows.

4 Door Mid Size car Bare Essentials for features (radio heat AC) Economy car.
100 Mile range MINIMUM (ie worst case range everything running worst road conditions within reason)
250,000 mile lifespan on the battery UNDER $4000 to replace the battery (note before anyone says this is too much to ask they ALREADY accomplished this over 10 years ago with the E95 NIMH battery in the EV1)

150,000 mile warranty covering every single component of the battery electric system (controller charger motor battery etc..) Reasonable warranty on the rest.

Selling price to the consumer NO subsidies to be UNDER $12,000 out the door.

If you can not do this within 3 years you can no longer do business in this country.

Task #3 the Reward

The first 3 Auto Makers to successfully do this will be TAX FREE for life. Absolutely positively NO taxes whatsoever will ever be due by these companies. (so long as they continue to advance and proliferate the electric car)

The money SAVED by the US government and US economy would make the Money lost in tax revenue from those 3 companies seem so small it would not even be worth worrying about.

Once 3 Auto Makers accomplish this task the other auto makers are excused from the requirements (market forces will take care of them once that happens)


Thats it. Penalize the RIGHT people man.

I am being deadly serious I think Battery electrics could virtually eliminate unemployment.

Here is how. Everything. and I mean EVERYTHING you can see or touch around you has GASOLINE factored into the cost. REMOVE that cost.

UPS paid a million dollars to a software engineering firm to design routing software to avoid left turns. There were 2 primary reasons for this. Left turns take longer (fewer stops on a route) and left turns are more dangerous (crossing an oncoming lane of traffic)

There is a third benefit. Saving gasoline. in the FIRST year using this new program they saved over THREE MILLIONS dollars in gasoline !!

Now while thats really impressive whats more impressive to me is the thought that if they saved 3 million dollars JUST avoiding left turns imagine what they must spend TOTAL in gasoline every single year. It must be BILLIONS of dollars.

Let me give you an idea of just how much money. Remember Exxon's RECORD profits last year in 2007? (which they are in line to BREAK this year) I wondered how much money did they have to bring in to earn that $39.5 BILLION

I found out. 327 BILLION dollars. you read that right 1/3 of a TRILLION dollars. and thats to just ONE single oil company.

Imagine what it would do to our economy if I infused over a TRILLION dollars every year BACK into the economy. Not into the hands of the rich but into EVERYONE's hands as they never had to buy gasoline every again.

I think business would EXPLODE with the insane savings. That Expansion would equal a massive increase in new jobs.

NO it would not increase the load on the electrical grid. it only takes 8000 watts to go 100 miles in an electric car (the 4 door might use a little more) or about $1 in electricity.

Gasoline is 15 times more expensive even at todays under $3 pricing.

Not only that but all the electricity used to GET the gasoline into your car STOPS being used and that electrical usage is very likely GREATER than the Electricity you would use to power your car.

Not only that but with Nano Solar putting out 90cent a watt solar panels consider this number $2600. $1600 for a grid tie in and $1000 for a solar panel.

That solar panel will now produce more watts each month than the typical 15,000 mile a year american will use charging there cars. (there is a nice little buffer in that panel so people in lesser climates (northern states etc..) will still produce enough power.

Now the car is 100% zero load on the grid 100% pollution free and 100% free to drive.

There is no downside to battery electric cars to the end user or the economy (of the lower 90%)

NO new technology is needed it all already exists and its all already CHEAP even though its not yet even mass produced (thats the nature of solid state tech its CHEAP and only gets cheaper)

$12,000 is very doable thats likely what the EV1 would have sold for (the prototypes were $80,000 per GM typical cost of a mass produced car is 10:1 so around $8,000 to mass produce and this ignores the higher than normal rate of decline for solid state components.

and ALMOST EVERYONE could afford a $12,000 electric car. you see Take what you spend in gasoline PER MONTH right now. Now figure out what the monthly payment would be on a $12,000 car loan. you do the math.

That car would cost me NOTHING over what I am already spending out of pocket right now. IE the car is effectively free of any costs except insurance costs.

This also ignores the savings from other expenses such as parts fluids and other regular maintenance and repairs that virtually vanish with Electric Cars.

You suggest I should get a Prius to avoid paying your "gas pig" tax. Well let me do some math for you.

Gas is $3 a gallon I drive a minimum 30,000 miles a year in my commuter vehicle and it gets (used to get) 28mpg.

number crunching time. so in 10 YEARS, $32,142 in gasoline.

Now whats a PRIUS costs me? the car is $24,000 the Finance charges are at least $20,000 plus taxes fees etc..

Then you have the mandatory full coverage insurance. for me thats an EXTRA $1200 a year. thats another $6000 over 5 years (after that I can lower it to liability)

$12,000 if its a 10 year warranty.

Total Cost $56,000 and I have to pay that in FIVE YEARS !! that means I have to come up with over $11,000 a year.

The fuel savings of a Prius over say a 35mpg $10,000 kia.

Excess cost is $46,000 total.

Now let me do some math here. $32,000 for 10 FRELLING YEARS OF GASOLINE

or $46,000 for a damned prius to avoid your PENALTY punishing ME for not wanting to spend $50 grand on a damned car.

Lets see your penalty. $32,000 if you double the price of gas for me. WOW would you look at that I have NO CHOICE buy to SUCK UP your penalty because even WITH your penalty its cheaper to PAY your penalty than to buy a new car. Wow amazingly effective isn't it. (I am sorry for coming off GRUFF but this subject really gets under my skin so please do not take offense)

NOW how much will I save in gasoline with the prius. Maybe the gas savings will make up the difference.

Lets see you know something the heck with that lets compare it to my MINIVAN that I am driving RIGHT NOW that I paid $2000 for and costs me $400 a year in insurance. lets compare to THAT. (btw the $32 grand in gasoline IS at 28mpg with my minivan NOT the 35mpg kia)

SO whats that Prius going to cost me in FUEL in 10 years. Just shy of $20,000

so I am going to pay an extra $56,000 dollars in the next 5 years in order to save a measily $12,000 in fuel in TEN YEARS.

thats FOURTY SIX YEARS for the Prius to pay for itself in fuel savings assuming ZERO repairs. (you think that little lithium pack is going to last that long?)

The Prius is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL RIP OFF (unless you happen to ALREADY be buying a $24,000 car anyway then YES by all means get it and save some money on gas) but if your SOLE objective is to SAVE MONEY the PRIUS is the WRONG way to do it.

Your just trading paying an oil company versus paying a car company and your gonna pay that car company EVEN MORE.

Do not even get me started on HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS. The equivalent of a gallon of hydrogen as compared to gasoline will be $7-$8 and the equivalent fuel economy will be 35mpg. and you think thats good? Once again a NEW car I can not afford and fuel thats more than TWICE as much as what I am paying now.

OH but its clean. its Green its clean. IRRELEVANT if I can not afford it.

I own older cars BECAUSE I CAN NOT AFFORD NEWER CARS.

I have owned 9 cars in my life still own 7 of those 9 cars. 8 of those 9 cars TOTALED together cost me less than my dad's down payment on his towncar.

**** all my cars together cost me less than he pays in car insurance in 5 years not counting the cost of his cars JUST the car insurance.

and you want me to BUY a new car or pay twice as much for gas. GREAT IDEA. Of course I will have no choice but to suck up your gas tax in full since its still cheaper than buying a new car and by a lot.

And of course the Auto Makers have NO incentive to do anything about it. I am not buying one of there cars either way since I can not afford it so what do they have to gain?

Making better cars cost money. They have no real incentive to SPEND that money on people who can not afford to pay for the cars anyway. The people who CAN pay for the cars will already pay for them to avoid the penalty tax. So either way your tax does nothing but punish me.

Making better cars that are cheaper IE that I and other CAN afford IE battery electric cars. Well just watch who killed the electric car for how well that went. Yeah right.

you see 54% of of GM's profit comes from AFTER they sell you the car. Finance Charges Repairs Labor Warranty parts etc..

Almost all of that goes POOF with an electric car economy. They are nearly maintenance free and are solid state so much cheaper. Even if the first few are expensive the NATURE of the technology is that it will become cheaper and quickly. THATS why they sold the patent to Chevron. They knew if people could get these batteries there was nothing they could do to stop ONE manufacturer from doing it and making the cars. Once that happens they would have no choice via the free market but to ALSO make similar cars.

Hence they had to bury the batteries. The batteries were the key without them the Electric Cars were going nowhere and that was the objective.

SO as you can see auto makers will do anything they CAN including abuse the patent system to PREVENT us from having affordable cheap clean cars if it will make them MORE MONEY.

What you need to attack with your big stick is CAR COMPANIES.

NOT citizens.

Please do not take offense I know its a huge post but its SUCH an important issue and one that SO gets under my skin.

They are vile criminals and when I see someone (without malice intent) want to excuse them and PUNISH US for THERE actions. Well that just makes me mad!
 
61 - 80 of 81 Posts
Top