Re: [Amc-list] $3.00Gal. Gas? = Get my Butt out of Dodge City=

[Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I've started nuging my wife towards a true econobox car. I figure we should have at least one online.
The wife is real partilal to Nissans as we've had resounding success with them for the last 25 years now.
  So I'm leaning her towards a Versa or the like, nudge, nudge. You gotta be careful though, it's like trying to herd a cat!!! If I make her nervous she'll takeoff and hide under the sofa, or sumpin!
  My other thought is to use my car building skills to build an electric Rambler!!!   Now that would be just plain cool!

--
Mark Price
Morgantown, WV
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Armand Eshleman" <aje1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I don't know Frank I kind of like Mitsubodge, and Chrysubishi doesn't sound
> so bad either. Rofl.
> 
> Armand
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM" <Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Amc-list] $3.00Gal. Gas? = Get my Butt out of Dodge City=
> 
> 
> Oh it will likely be $4/gal (national average) by the peak in the summer.
> Seems the oil companies (who have us by the b***s, or v****a -- not to leave
> the ladies out) count on summer for their biggest profits. The oil companies
> "raise prices in an effort to reduce demand" -- right when everyone gets
> their vacation time and such. So all this does in reality is increase
> profits. It does curb some driving, but since we all do a lot more in the
> summer, the higher prices does nothing for the consumer -- unless they have
> investments in oil companies. I suppose if fuel use went uncurbed by higher
> prices we might run into shortages -- they can only make it so fast. A
> little curbing due to higher prices is better than none?
> 
> I saw a report on TV (forget the channel) about the fuel problem in the US.
> It's mainly due to refinery capacity. There are no new ones, and the old
> ones have occasional break-downs. Anything that effects refining effects the
> fuel supply. The oil companies say that they can't (or won't) build new ones
> because of environmental regulations. Yet when a CA billionaire offered to
> build one a couple years ago, and even found a location, it was made clear
> he'd have nothing to refine. Who's looking out for who here? As long as a
> few big companies control the flow of crude, no one else can get in on the
> ball game.
> 
> It's the Harley-Davidson business model. You have a popular product, so
> don't slate the demand. Instead, keep the demand up by only making so much.
> Make as much as wanted and prices will go down. Well, it's sort of like
> that -- only everyone has to have fuel to get back and forth to work, etc.
> 
> The only way to possibly "fix" the "problem" is for the government to step
> in. But it's not as simple as regulating prices (which IMHO needs to be
> done -- it's not like there's a big price break on heating oil to offset the
> summer gasoline prices). Consumption would have to be regulated also.
> Otherwise as long as there is relatively cheap gas demand will continue to
> rise, and Americans will continue to buy huge gas guzzling vehicles for no
> good reason. I'm talking about the soccer mom driving the Navigator to tool
> the kids around, not the guy who needs a large vehicle to tow his
> camper/horse/race car/show car trailer. If you're towing 2-3 times a month
> it's hard to justify another "second" vehicle to run around in. That's
> understandable. But how many people buy a lot more truck than they need?
> 
> The way I see it, these things need to happen:
> 
> 1. Price regulation. The bastards won't do it themselves, so let the
> government -- like Nixon did following the 70s shortages and were in place
> through 1981. It's being done in Canada now -- 
> http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/Promos/fuel_prices/index-e.asp. Also check
> www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/gas_prices_regulation.html. This site
> contends that price controls led to shortages -- easy to see how, I referred
> to such a phenomena above. That prices are used to control usage does make
> some sense, but big price hikes in anticipation of possible problems
> 
> 2. Institute stricter controls on SUVs and ALL vehicles primarily intended
> to serve passenger duty, regardless of configuration. Pickup trucks have
> different emission and safety regulations, yet 80% or more (being
> conservative...) are ONLY used to haul butts around, and the occasional
> garbage trip (but don't scratch the inside of my bed!!). Americans like big
> powerful vehicles, and when cars of that nature started drying up they went
> to trucks. Prices of trucks went up, and that's why Ford, GM, and Chrysler
> are pushing them -- cost to build didn't go up proportionately with prices,
> profits on the less restricted vehicles sure did though! Now look what mess
> those guys are in... Passenger car standards need to apply to all 3/4 ton
> capacity (maybe even 1 ton -- the expedition was built specifically to be
> over a certain GVW so it would be exempt from even more restrictions!) and
> under vehicles since that's the primary use for most of them.
> 
> That will hurt people with a legitimate use for a truck, I know. Sorry guys,
> but you're a vast minority. Only businesses who can claim a legitimate
> need/use should get any kind of exemptions, and that could be a tax break.
> Heavily taxing is another way to get things back in line to what they were
> in the 70s (proportion of passenger vehicles vs. SUVs/trucks). The SUV has
> pretty much taken the place of the station wagon, and the cross-over types
> should be exempt. But for those who just claim "I need the room" there are
> more conservative solutions, as much as most of you hate the idea of a mini
> van...
> 
> I know that doesn't address occasional towing needs. But that opens up a
> nice rental niche market. A friend of mine used to rent a local U-haul truck
> to move his big cabin cruiser. He only took it out of the water for winter
> storage and occasionally for maintenance. So the 2-4 times he needed to pull
> it out he rented a big U-haul truck. That's overkill, but he couldn't rent a
> heavy duty pickup anywhere. If one or more of the rental companies filled
> in, you could rent a 3/4 ton dually diesel pickup reasonably for a few days
> for your towing needs much cheaper than owning one year round. You would
> have to plan your trips, but that's a minor inconvenience. In truth only the
> one-way rentals are kind of expensive now. I rented a U-haul truck and
> trailer one-way from GA to MS when I bought my current Rambler. Rode my
> motorcycle up, put it in back of U-haul, towed car back. The rental would
> have been cheaper had I picked up and returned the truck and trailer at the
> same place, but once I added the cost of fuel...
> 
> 3. Enforce/tighten CAFÉ standards. I don't particularly like them either,
> but US car companies just are not going to be innovative unless they have
> to. They're going to whine and moan and lobby congress to make things easy
> and more profitable for them, even if it costs them their existence and
> market share -- as it ultimately has. The US companies have rested on their
> truck profits and let foreign companies infiltrate and virtually own the
> passenger car segment. They just haven't kept up, and far worse, haven't
> really tried.
> 
> 4. GM has continually stated they weren't working much on hybrids because
> they were concentrating on alternate fuels -- specifically hydrogen fuel
> cell technology. Well, until gasoline prices and (and vehicle regulation?)
> get in the $5/gal range, alternate technology just doesn't make economic
> sense. For alcohol, biodiesel (the most promising in the short term), and
> hydrogen to replace or supplement gasoline on a large scale will require
> massive infrastructure changes and additions (transporting, storage, and
> distributing). That's a major economic impact -- the changes will have to be
> paid for in sales of the fuel. It will take decades to gradually increase
> the use of renewable fuels in place of hydrocarbon fuels. At least we're on
> the right track by requiring all gasoline to contain at least 10% alcohol -- 
> that's a good first step with minimal impact (not no impact -- that's
> impossible!). Brazil uses almost 100% alcohol for regular passenger
> transportation, but it took them decades and lots of government support to
> get that way (they started in the 70s).
> 
> You have to start somewhere, and I think we're on the right track. In 5-6
> years the US will probably be at the price level where it will be
> economically feasible to produce and sell alternate fuels if the rate of
> consumption stays the same (or at the current growth rate). But Toyota or
> Hyundai will most likely introduce mass production capable vehicles using
> that technology before any US company. But by then it might be a "Toyolet"
> of "Fozda".... maybe a Chyundai or Fyundai? ( I just can't blend Mitsubishi
> and Chrylser or Dodge into something with a reasonable sound to it!!).
> 
> 
> I know this long post will tick some people (especially big SUV/Truck
> lovers) off, but this is the way I see things going. I can't paint a
> reasonable picture with lots of big vehicles on the road -- it just doesn't
> make sense to me in the long term.
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 4/24/07 5:43
> PM
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list