Truckers' strike/slowdown
By now you should have heard of a slowdown or outright strike by many truckers across the nation.
I did not participate but support those who did. Talk around the truck stops is, more to come this week. There is talk of a week-long work stoppage. More rolling roadblocks (and attendant tickets). Washington DC protests a la the French, who like to park trucks on the roads to protest things. Truckers' convoy across the nation. You name it.
We are tired of the inequities of pay, higher than reasonable diesel prices, little or no fuel reimbursements, dishonest dispatchers or (especially) freight brokers, who in my opinion are all crooks and low freight rates.
This has been cooking for a long time now, I have been approached by other truckers to join them, unsuccessfully so far. I won't go so far as to say I am not affected by the prices and price-gouging (I am, indirectly) but my heart is with my brother (and sister) truckers who must try to eke out a living in these conditions.
Comments? Questions? I will be posting on this in my blog later this week, after I compose my thoughts more coherently. I will try to answer your posers as best I can, even if I have to research the answer.
Brian
If the stuff I ordered from Omaha Steaks thaws out, I'm gonna kick your ass.:lol2:
We are tired of the inequities of pay, higher than reasonable diesel prices, little or no fuel reimbursements, dishonest dispatchers or (especially) freight brokers, who in my opinion are all crooks and low freight rates.
When top people screw those who work for them, then unions result. A union only reflects how the workers were treated maybe ten years previously.
Problem is that independent truckers have massive weakness. They are too independent.
I don't understand how the oil companies can say that their wealth is deserved and yet still need tax breaks.
My miles-to-delivery ratio has been down recently, while my dollars per mile are up...I've been blessed with good delivery runs lately.
I don't understand how the oil companies can say that their wealth is deserved and yet still need tax breaks.
Hard to argue with that.
I don't understand how the oil companies can say that their wealth is deserved and yet still need tax breaks.
Hard to argue with that.
While I do not agree...I am under the impression that the tax breaks given to big oil are supposed to be ear-marked to be used for future oil exploratation.
While the oil we currently burn is 'easy' to dig up, in the future wells will need to be much deeper or future wells will not be as plentifull.
Again, I am being raped along with everyone else. In fact my next vehicle will be a Toyota Prius. My commute round trip is 110 mile a day.:greenface
I remember a few years ago when the truckers on I-75 did the slow down thing. was really impossible to get around them and a major PITA, but I understood their position.
do what you want, but get the fuck out of the passing lane already.....I'm gonna be late for work!
I wonder who, if anyone, on this board(who lives in the tri-state area) can make me a deal on a new Prius while also giving me a good deal on my trade-in.(a 99 taco w/ 300k miles...but I do own it)
Just thinking aloud......
While the oil we currently burn is 'easy' to dig up, in the future wells will need to be much deeper or future wells will not be as plentifull.
According to the
US Dept. of Energy (from last year), we're importing double what we make ourselves. And ANWR would only give us enough to last anywhere from 9 months to 15 or so years (depending on how we use it).
Having seen gas triple in price since 9/11, I don't think they're doing a very good job of finding new shit.
I wonder who, if anyone, on this board(who lives in the tri-state area) can make me a deal on a new Prius while also giving me a good deal on my trade-in.(a 99 taco w/ 300k miles...but I do own it)
Just thinking aloud......
Go talk to LJ.
Problem is that independent truckers have massive weakness. They are too independent.
That's their nature, TW. the independents fulfill an important niche in trucking. However, they tend to have to use brokers to get loads since they are occupied driving, planning, maintaining, more planning and etc.
And the unions ARE in evidence. Teamsters mostly. They cover the ports, many boxload haulers (FedEx, Con-Way etc). And THEY are definitely true to form and behind much of the mischief and shenanigans. My usual feelings regarding unions (esp after the IBEW and I fell out) apply. The independents are the industry bellwether, followed by the owner/ops. Already, independents and gypsies are parking and selling their rigs. Soon, the ranks of company drivers will swell, which is good for major trucking companies but bad for competition.
In the end, YOU will pay for the trouble in the form of higher cost of living. We deliver almost everything you have and when the rates go up, your prices will go up.
I remember a few years ago when the truckers on I-75 did the slow down thing. was really impossible to get around them and a major PITA, but I understood their position.
The slow down thing is, in my opinion, bad for us as a whole as all it does is foster ill-will against truckers by the general public, who are the only ones hurt by this form of protest. I think we are better served by high-profile parking, traditional picket lines and sandwich boards, and even the drive to Washington DC to make ourselves visible to the lawmakers.
Brian
BrianR--Last night on the local news they interviewed a local trucker lady. She mentioned that maybe people don't care for the truckers but they move America. I see what you're saying about the slow-down causing more ill will, but it's silly that people have that attitude. I, for one, appreciate what you have to do. It can't be an easy job. Go truckers.
As for the strike, I think it's at least a small way to maybe get people to see how hard the fuel prices are on the trucking companies, and especially on the independent truckers.
You guys aren't a bunch of (insert company here, I will decline) people making 35 bucks an hour who strike every time someone looks at you sideways, and expecting the industry to figure out a way to survive and to hell with the future. You are trying to protect your livelihood.
I applaud the truckers!
I don't understand how the oil companies can say that their wealth is deserved and yet still need tax breaks.
I believe the thinking goes something like, "If we don't get tax breaks, we won't get to make nearly as many billions of dollars in profits."
Yeah. That's about all there is to it.
Actually, there are many segments of the trucking field who are agitating for pay-by-the-hour. Especially the unions, whose pay can be based upon the minimum wage.
I once figured out that if I were paid for ALL the work I did, my paycheck would work out to about $1.35/hour.
And that only counts logged work... when training a new student, I can easily put in 20 hour days for the first week or so. After the first two weeks, they usually can handle the job without my august presence.
The theory goes that if we were paid by the hour instead of by the mile, there'd be less pressure on us to make tight deadlines, take breaks more often (lessening our fatigue level) and letting us lower our overall stress level.
I dunno about this... wait staff tends to make less than minimum wage because of their "tips". If our paymasters would try to give us $1.35/hr and claim that all our benefits and "bonuses" count as income, we'd be right back at our earning level and STILL have to meet that tight deadline.
I need to think more on this.
I once figured out that if I were paid for ALL the work I did, my paycheck would work out to about $1.35/hour.
So you're about right there with the schoolteachers; who are also out supplies that the school can't afford to provide.
Here are a few links to oil executives trying to defend their profits. Try
this,
this and
this.
I managed to stand with my brother truckers at our park and wank.
In that time, my student and I managed to rouse passing drivers to at least honk in support, if not stop.
I got on the Channel 7 news in an interview segment, he was shot for stock footage waving and jumping up and down. Goofball.
I also donated water, sodas and sandwiches. Other people offered pizza, more water, donuts and assorted other foods.
Tomorrow, there is a parade planned. I might go with them, but my truck will stay safely parked and my job safely secure.
Sir Richard Branson said he as seen this happen three times since the 1970s. However, he says he has never seen so much wealth being transfered so quickly. With significantly reduced wealth, who suffers? In the 70s, truckers were some of the first victims.
I think its time for CW McCall to make a comeback, and perhaps another Smokey and The Bandit film would be useful.
My bill from the trashman has a $10 fuel surcharge added.
Oh, and the vending machines at work just jumped 25% on everything. That stuff comes by trucks, too.
I managed to stand with my brother truckers at our park and wank.
In that time, my student and I managed to rouse passing drivers to at least honk in support, if not stop.
I got on the Channel 7 news in an interview segment, he was shot for stock footage waving and jumping up and down. Goofball
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Is "wank" being used here in an alternate context to the one Brits are familiar with? If not, well them I'm not flipping surprised you were on the news and drivers honked.
Buy local!!! Yea!!
It's just going to get worse, support your local farming community.
(I just got done driving a couple accounts just now (for that job I quit) and the money earned only paid for gas)
I think its time for CW McCall to make a comeback, and perhaps another Smokey and The Bandit film would be useful.
I hope so. Already, we've seen Dave Dudley come back from retirement to record a new album after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Is "wank" being used here in an alternate context to the one Brits are familiar with? If not, well them I'm not flipping surprised you were on the news and drivers honked.
Not exactly. The "wanking" referred to is to expose the futility of what they were doing. Nothing good will come of this, the protests we've all seen will not bring one iota of help to us, all we've done is piss off everyone.
What we wanted to do is educate the public about the ramifications of allowing this to go on, that they will ultimately pay for the costs being heaped upon the truckers. *I'm* not paying the extra fuel and neither will other drivers. We'll pass it along in the form of higher freight rates. The consignees will pay it if they want their freight. YOU will pay the higher retail cost if you want bread/milk/cars/anything.
I'm just going to be the scapegoat.
What we wanted to do is educate the public about the ramifications of allowing this to go on, that they will ultimately pay for the costs being heaped upon the truckers. *I'm* not paying the extra fuel and neither will other drivers. We'll pass it along in the form of higher freight rates. The consignees will pay it if they want their freight. YOU will pay the higher retail cost if you want bread/milk/cars/anything.
The prices have already gone up, but as a vendor, (before I just quit) I talked to all the corporate clients we had, and sent out a notice that we would not be raising prices (in effect raising retail), we would be cutting credits given to corporate clients. Direct sales only. Cutting production to precisely what they sell, and no credits given back for what they don't sell, which is a wasteful policy after you consider materials and production costs.
:D
You can complain about gas charges, as we all do. Rightfully. But there are many ways to get around raising costs at retail. Corporate gets a lot of credit, not to mention all the discounts, and they get away with wasting a lot of the items that you just delivered.
So far I have donated 1400.00 in wasted bread to food banks this year, and this is unfortanately because corporate likes shelves to "look full" and get credit back on all that they waste. Take their credit away and you will be able to afford delivery charges. This did not work at two companies but it did at about 20 others. No more wasted product on the vendor's dime. Yea!!!
Imagine their surprise when they just assumed I would be raising wholesale prices. "Everybody has done it and we are marking up retail here". Nu-uh.
We are cutting your credits. Our product is costly enough at the stores, we are cutting the amount of material waste, labor, and delivery costs..thank you, g'bye.
Oh and again, buy local.
:D
Sorry, I don't control the merchandise. I just move it from point A to point B. I know nothing of credits, waste, thrift or anything else. I just drive the truck. And refuel it to the tune of $500-$600 a day.
Look to the corporate entities that send things and buy and sell. They might control costs better, but my costs will not change...it will still take X gallons of diesel to go from A to B. That cost is a cost of doing business and will NOT come from the pockets of corporate fat cats, the truckers or anyone else but the end consumer, who also pays a certain amount to cover those wasteful losses.
Brian
I just spent the most amount of money ever to fill my tank from empty to full: $41.59. Ouch...
That cost is a cost of doing business and will NOT come from the pockets of corporate fat cats, the truckers or anyone else but the end consumer, who also pays a certain amount to cover those wasteful losses.
Brian
I thought I just went too far into a good explanation as to how that can be avoided at least temporarily, as I was doing. But it probably read like gobeldy-gook. See, you have to get creative to avoid sticker shock especially if the product you supply is already expensive by it's nature.
:D
All you know out there is how much you spend trying to deliver the items. I don't really think it's just up to the truckers to strike, when they pass the charges on and collect for the gas bills. I think it's up to all gas consumers to strike because the situation is not going to change anytime soon while we have a congress that takes a blind eye to gouging.
I started a non-profit awhile back, with some great people that are still on-board, because a lot of people saw this coming long before it started to happen. This situation was one of our many platforms to illustrate our reliance on petrochemicals, and try and demand that people become resourceful enough to start supplying their own areas with a self-sustainable production economy. Look, here it is, happening as predicted, and even truckers are as pissed as predicted (I talked to many while I was doing research).
Remember hurricane Katrina? Remember how everyone needed gas to travel either to the affected area or away from? Gas spiked overnight anywhere up to a dollar or so a tank. That makes me never want to buy their product again!!
Imagine that happening to your favorite restaurant? Busy night? "Well we are going to mark the food up by a third because we are so busy." Now imagine that the same restaurant marked up their prices because no one had any food and had been starving.
I think people should shut down for at least a day and quit driving all at the same time, and boycott gasoline. Not just truckers. It doesn't just effect truckers, it effects everyone. It shouldn't be a truckers strike. It should be a gas boycott for everyone.
People are going to have to learn how to self-sustain, just a little bit, and at least buy local, because the situation will not change, it will only get worse from here, and after a time you will not even be able to deliver anymore. The retail price on a tomato will become so astounding, and the wages will not increase. There will be fewer deliveries and out of state food will become scarce. There's my soap-box. The more this happens the more I'm glad I was out there trying to spread the word about self-sustaining communities. It's funny that the truckers I talked to about it, way back when, knew what in the hell I was talking about, but your average consumer just doesn't get it. Doesn't want to either, it might require work. Food will become only for the rich.
:D
Here was our line: Are you aware of how many miles an average delivery truck drives to get your products to the store?.........
Ok done. Thank you for letting me rant in your strike thread. I'm glad someone is complaining. Sad it's you guys....It's also strange that it's you guys but makes a little sense. Thanks. :)
Is the strike over btw?
Is the strike over btw?
Yes.
higher than reasonable diesel prices
What do Americans pay for diesel fuel, anyway? Is it more than $5 per gallon?
It's $3.80 per gallon here, and gas/diesel prices here tend to be among the lowest in the country.
diesel $4.58 / gal this morning.
http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm
Pence per litre UK = 94.8 (approx $2)
Pence per litre US = 38.2
It's out of date by 3 years, but shows the discrepancy.
How's the price of daily goods compared to ours, my British friends?
Why is it that Europeans feel that just because THEY pay through the nose for fuel, the rest of the world should also?
Diesel averages $4.02 nationwide as of last week.
Brian
Brian, I for one was answering a previous question.
NOT suggesting you should pay the same, esp as you don't have the tax based "free" healthcare & safety net we have re unemployment, incapacity or state pension.
http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm
Pence per litre UK = 94.8 (approx $2)
Pence per litre US = 38.2
It's out of date by 3 years, but shows the discrepancy.
The discrepancy is not quite so big now (still huge, though) as gas prices in the US have nearly quadrupled in the 7 years we've been here, and the same is not true of the UK over the same time period.
Brian, i find prices for food stuffs incomparable because of the different products and their popularity and because of the different way store structure their "sale' prices and special offers.
But clothing, electronics and toys compare pretty much pound for dollar, which means that Brits are paying twice as much for goods. And at the moment they're paying about twice as much for gas, too. My MIL tells me it's about a quid a litre at the moment. which is about $2/liter. which is in the range of $7.50/US gallon. This is regular gas, not diesel.
diesel $4.58 / gal this morning.
Well today it is $4.69 / gallon. Holy moly!
It's $3.80 per gallon here, and gas/diesel prices here tend to be among the lowest in the country.
$4 now...everything jumped 20 cents in the past 2 days.
It seems like here in St. Louis, there is a day or two delay when switching gas prices. We hit $112 a barrel on Wednesday and it shot up yesterday afternoon.
I was just reading a one-year forecast: $143/bbl...yikes!
Similarities continue between today and from the days of Nam. Today, bankruptcies among truckers have increased by a factor of three. What is happening to so many rigs confiscated by creditors? A profitable market for exporting rigs is growing. Back in the days created by Nam, that same market for exporting construction equipment (ie Caterpillar 988 payloaders) from America was also so profitable. When America goes into recession, a first thing to suddenly get exported is its machines.
I think today IS Nam. No time has passed, no advances made, we are, indeed, still in Nam. The government just wants us to THINK it's 2008; it's really 1973. I'm only 9. I love David Cassidy and my deepest desire is to own a pink Princess phone like my friend, Diane.
Brian: my friend here whose husband is a trucker--well, they went out of business this week; they turned in the truck and will have to file bankruptcy. They tried to make it work, but his take home had been reduced by 2/3.
such a shame.
From The Washington Post of 21 Apr 2008:
A Switch on the Tracks: Railroads Roar Ahead
Now he's in charge of raising the roof of a Norfolk Southern tunnel in southwestern Virginia to clear headroom for the double-stacked container cars that have become the symbol of the industry's sudden surge thanks to a confluence of powerful global factors.
"For years, we were looking for ways to cut costs to increase profits," said Billingsley, as a train rumbled by. "Now, we're building business to increase profits."
The freight railway industry is enjoying its biggest building boom in nearly a century, a turnaround as abrupt as it is ambitious. It is largely fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel costs for 18-wheelers. In 2002, the major railroads laid off 4,700 workers; in 2006, they hired more than 5,000. Profit has doubled industry-wide since 2003, and stock prices have soared. The value of the largest railroad, the Union Pacific, has tripled since 2001.
This year alone, the railroads will spend nearly $10 billion to add track, build switchyards and terminals, and open tunnels to handle the coming flood of traffic. Freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by 2035, according to the Transportation Department. ...
A train can haul a ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel, about a 3-to-1 fuel efficiency advantage over 18-wheelers, and the railroad industry is increasingly touting itself as an eco-friendly alternative. Trucking firms also use the rail lines; UPS is the railroad industry's biggest customer.
:eek:
I cannot be that buzzed - Did UG just agree with T-dub????
Someone help me out here please.
I cannot be that buzzed - Did UG just agree with T-dub????
Sorry. I posted that under the wrong account name.
What??? How many names do you have, and what are they?
trucks are still needed to get the freight from railyards to customers. I know, I haul rail freight as well as box freight for all the major package senders (FedEx. UPS, DHL etc)
look at a freight train sometime, there are plenty of vans on those flatbeds.
Brian
I was driving back in 74, maybe, when the truckers went on strike. IIRC nothing changed, then
and nothing will change now, either.
I just paid $895 for 203 gallons in Wapakoneta OH.
Oh my! $4.409/gal. Where will it end?
Oh my! $4.409/gal. Where will it end?
Show me where $3.50 per gallon has changed driving habits. Well, for the first time, anti-American designed vehicles (pickup trucks and SUVs with 1968 technology engines) have finally seen a downturn in sales. Mass transit ridership has only increases a paltry 5 or 8%. Price of gasoline went from $0.85 to $3.50 before we see such paltry attitude changes? Well, yah. Now how much higher must prices go before we actually do address the problem - Americans waste oil easily by a factor of two and probably a factor of four. We must decrease our oil consumption to 50% and maybe to 25%.
Same professionals that predicted $100 per barrel oil when the majority denied it are now talking about $200 per barrel oil because so many people in America remain so wasteful. Tens gallons of gasoline but only 1 to 2 do any useful work.
More numbers. $5.00 per gallon gasoline (previously as the point at which Americans will finally admit to the problem) means oil must go to $175 per barrel. History says oil must go to those prices before Americans finally decide that Cheney, et al (a famous liar and anti-American) was wrong about consumption and production being the solution.
Remember when George Jr was first elected? Government officials suggested we should increase the weight of automobiles to 4000 pounds so that SUVs don't kill so many people. Well, the SUV is so anti-American that - view a distance between the top of a front wheel and the hood line. A larger distance means the vehicle is that anti-American and does more to waste oil. Patriotic passenger vehicles have almost no distance between the top of its hood and top of front wheels. Every SUV could do that AND would weigh massively less. But that means engineering. And engineering only increases costs - according bean counters.
When will prices stop rising? Well when do the thousands of little innovation indicators - ie less distance between hood and front wheel - start to appear. Until we see things innovative - which also means patriotic and not as dumb as UG - only then are the reasons for higher oil prices being solved.
Every mid-size car I have owned since 1980s has routinely done 30+ MPG even in local traffic. Technology has always existed. But with so many so anti-Americans as to even need SUVs, well, who gets punished? BrianR suffers first. But again, another lesson from the 1970s when another scumbag president would also lie routinely.
What is the latest suggestion discussed by some government officials? Price controls. Who did that previously? Nixon - another lying president who cared more about his political agenda; America be damned. Obviously prices controls would not work then. Obviously price controls on oil would only protect those who most create this problem - the most wasteful of fuel - SUV and pickup truck owners who said, "Keep making crappy products."
When will prices moderate? When will America finally concede that Americans who stifle innovation have always been the problem? Next post demonstrates how long ago everyone should have known this.
GM now has lost something like $5billion this year. Trivial intelligence is necessary to appreciate why GM is losing so much money. Routinely perform HP/Liter calculations for their crappy engines. GM products need typically two extra pistons to obtain same horsepower. So the technology originally pioneered by GM in the early 1970s still will not be sold in that brand new car - using the same technology from 1955 models.
GERMAN automakers gave up pushrod engines long ago, in favor of more complex overhead-cam power plants. The Japanese have essentially quit making the old-design engines. Ford is down to just a couple.
But Chrysler, with seven, and especially General Motors, with about a dozen in 21 different forms, remain bastions of the pushrod engine, also known as an overhead-valve design.
Not only has G.M. continued to carry forward older engine designs, like the famous "small block V-8" in your grandfather's 1955 Bel Air (and your son's 2005 Corvette), it has been designing new ones. The Chevy Impala offers two pushrod V-6's that are new for 2006.
Today we have another GM solution. Promote more MBA types into top management. General Motors Corp., the world's largest automaker, appointed Frederick Henderson chief financial officer and vice chairman to help end losses in North America after he trimmed jobs at its money-losing European business.
Henderson will help Chief Executive Rick Wagoner eliminate 30,000 factory jobs and close 12 facilities in North America, where GM has lost $4.8 billion from its auto operations this year. Henderson since June 2004 has led an effort that included slashing 12,000 jobs in Europe, where GM hasn't had an annual profit since 1999. The European business in this year's second quarter posted its first profit in five years, before slipping to a $382 million loss in the third quarter.
They still design new engines with 1950 push rod, obsolete technology. Then promote more of the problem - bean counters - to solve their crap product line and stifled innovation.
Let's see. The government gave them how many hundreds of millions of dollars in 1994 to build a hybrid? Where are those products? It requires an MBA to worry about the product - to innovate. Finance people cannot innovate except on spread sheet. In some places, spread sheet innovation is still called fraud - when they don't contribute enough to Bush Cheney campaign funds.
Anything new here? It was not new when it was posted in 2005 as
Kill the Messenger - this time the LA Times. Americans did nothing - bought even more of those most anti-American products. Economics then takes revenge including now paying $1.65 for things that once costs less than $1.00. Stay ignorant. Even listen to a lying president and his myths such as Man to Mars. Then suffer the consequences. Deja Vue the days of Nam and those like UG who got us into this. BTW, UG also criticized this reality when it was posted in 2005.
That's because I'm brighter than you, you know, and I never tire of reminding you of that.
UG also denied what we now know as reasons for rising oil prices. Public denial.
When do things start getting better? Innovation takes four to ten years. We are only beginning to pay for easy money, mythical tax breaks, "Mission Accomplished", welfare to big pharma, and other things that UG, et al approved of. We have not seen the resulting bills yet. Deja vue days of Nam which was also created by people like UG who promoted those same myths.
Appreciate how introverted the thinking was even in 2005?
Have gas prices affected you? Some here were so foolish as to 'know' a 140 HP engine was dangerous when small block mid-1970 V-8 only did 140 HP. Those were considered fast cars. Engines under 100 HP meant greater safety AND meant the driver was less likely to create crashes. But the mentality of "more power" was so inbred even in 2005.
Eventually, reality will take hold once oil prices get high enough. Eventually that 2005 mentality promoted by auto companies (with crappy engines) in will be replaced by world knowledge. Mindset forced when oil prices finally kill off what is now a world's worst passenger vehicle engine - the V-8.
Why do almost no Cosworth Mustangs exist from the 1960s. Engines were so powerful (about 200 Hp) as to destroy most every Mustang. No passenger car needs that much horsepower despite what others posted here in 2005.
Be stupid as to consume oil wastefully - eventually oil prices (economics) will take revenge. Unfortunately those who get punished first are BrianR and his peers. A lesson from history says significant job losses will result maybe two or more years from now.
A truck 345 horsepower to move 60,000+ pounds. A car of 3000 pounds needs a 200 horsepower and now a 300 horsepower engine? That's 11 times more power - why? Nïve know the truck does not accelerate – does not go fast enough. Funny. Some of the fastest moving vehicles on highway are trucks. Why do the naïve need 160 and 200 hp engines? A penis gets bigger when one is the first to a red light. That’s it. That justifies massive energy consumption and waste. Gasoline at $2.60 resulted in increased sales of the largest SUVs. Gas increasing from $0.85 to $2.60 was not sufficient to restore intelligent thinking.
Anyone owning passenger vehicles with a V-8 engine has no right to complain about gas prices because their ignorance (their contempt for innovation) is a major reason for those prices.
That's almost a goddamn record, tw.
and i don't mean the prices.
That's almost a goddamn record, tw.
and i don't mean the prices.
And your point is ... ?
I think what he, in fact, many of us want to know is if you could make your point in less than 10,000 words and 3 consecutive posts? just askin
tw's bringing you a 1000 points of light.
I think what he,in fact, many of us want to know is if you could make your point in less than 10,000 words and 3 consecutive posts? just askin
A post without numerous supporting facts is nothing but wild speculation.
I don't post sound bytes. However those posts are only a sound byte - an abridged version - of what I learned before obtaining those conclusions.
I don't know how to know something without numerous supporting facts or examples. Also why I could see through George Jr myths about Saddam's WMDs, mythical undercapitalized electric grid creating electrical blackouts, and the stupidity of Man to Mars.
Still to come from rising oil prices are significant electric rate increases, beef prices increasing maybe to double, and (as suggested by JP Morgan's top man) a 1980s recession. Only way these can be averted is a significant reduction in world oil consumption. Nothing suggests that is possible. Instability in so many major oil producing nations (Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela) imply markets may even get worse.
One look at the Detroit Auto show also suggests so. Most all new products are big SUVs, the more inefficient pickups, vehicles based in politically hyped and technically foolish alternative fuels, 300+ Hp V-8 engines, and no significant technological innovations. Nothing implies oil price increases will be averted. Bad new for BrianR and his peers. Be thankful that gasoline prices are so low as so many should have been last year when it was only $2.60 per gallon.
Oh relax Tom, I was just messin with ya. Geez - You certainly didn't need to add another post to reiterate whatever you said in your other three overtly longwinded posts.
A real truckers strike would cripple this country. I am not sure it would actually help lower the price per barrel of oil.
I dunno...I'm almost open to strong-arming the Saudis and Kuwaitis. Of course, it could cause a hell of a ripple effect, but...
Massive trucker strikes would SHUT DOWN the country. Still wouldn't help anything. We did that back in the 70s and nothing came of it. Won't help now either.
TW, I assume that your claim of 345 hp in my truck in the last post was a typo, as it has 435 and THAT is dialed down from it's maximum power setting of 500. Trucks are hardly the fastest vehicles on the road...more trucks are equipped with speed governors than not. I think Japanese sport bikes are the fastest, and they must come with a special permit to ride like a reincarnated kamikaze pilot. On the contrary, most trucks are operated safely and within the speed limit by professional drivers such as myself. Most often, traffic problems involving big trucks are caused by the car drivers around us, not the truckers. 80,000 lbs does not handle like 4000. It takes me 765 feet to whoa Old Paint down to zero mph from 65 mph under good conditions, yet how often do you see that kind of space cushion in front of a rig? Over two football fields? Rarely. Instead, I have motorists cut in front of me regularly within 50 feet!. Should an emergency develop, that motorist will be buried in his tin can of a car when I crush him, and it, flat.
Back to the thread topic, it's not so much the engine power, it's the gearing. That's how I can take only a little more hp than is in the average pick 'em up truck and haul heavy loads long distances that would burn out that motor. And it's a pushrod motor at that.
I have a standing invitation to anyone with a powerful engine/trans setup in their car to hook up to my towbar and try to out-pull me. My friend has a drag car with close to 700 hp and a racing trans and he wouldn't dare take up that gauntlet.
Gear a car to make high torque with even 95 hp and it'll pull. I think all cars should have governors in them that limit their speed to no more than 75 mph. Engines would soon become more efficient under that limitation, which is currently being proposed for trucks, and not for efficiency's sake either.
I'm beginning to ramble again so I'll shut up.
Brian
You certainly didn't need to add another post to reiterate whatever you said in your other three overtly longwinded posts.
Each of four posts provided completely new information. If you only see conclusions - ignore supporting facts - then all four posts are same. Repeatedly noted in so many posts. Grasp those supporting facts as if your life depended on it. Without supporting facts, a conclusion is just as good as a Rush Limbaugh lie or posts from people here who so foolishly support "Mission Accomplished". Four posts are same only if one sees conclusions - ignores what is more important.
345 Hp was the horsepower in another trucker's rig. 345 Hp was from a conversation only two days previously. 300 and 500 Hp to move more than 60,000 pounds? But others here foolishly think a car needs 200 Hp. Another example of those who know without first learning numbers. Same lesson were bluntly demonstrated in The Cellar in 2002/2003. Some were so easily manipulated into believing Saddam had WMDs because they ignored long posts with numerous supporting facts, details, and the numbers.
What good would a trucker's strike accomplish? Again, a first and standard question - what is the strategic objective? Long before a strike is considered, first, a solution (what defines a victory) must first be defined. That is the trucker's dilemma. Truckers did not create this problem. Truckers will be victims of others who so hate America as to even buy SUVs and monster pickups. But then we lived this same mistake throughout most of the 1970s.
A comment from Obama is a lesson from 1970s. When suggesting to Detroit executives that they must innovate; must increase gas mileage massively, Obama says the room got silent. Exact same response from 1970 MBAs when Carter asked for same solutions. They refused to innovate - a triumph of management school decisions. Detroit refused to use the 1960 stratified charge engine or the 1972 70 Hp/liter technology even after 1976 when Carter asked them to be patriots.
As a teenager, I built an electronic ignition for my 1960 technology Ford. Then asked why a kid could do what Detroit engineers could not. But then patriots repeatedly ask such questions. Nobody could answer then what everyone should know today. Engineers were quashed, stifled, prevented from innovating by business school graduates. Electronic ignitions did not appear until 1975 when EPA regulations forced (all but required) anti-innovation (MBA) management to innovate.
Want to see what contributes to high gasoline prices? American innovation must first appear ten plus years earlier in foreign products. Some Americans so hate America - so love obsolete technology - as to buy SUVs and pickups that weight too much for their little size, promote low performance engines, believe outright lies about 200 Hp engines, and ignore the trophy for obsolete American products - the V-8 engine.
Again, classicman, many new facts. For example, did you know why the only innovation in 1970s American cars always required EPA regulation? Literally every innovation that appeared in American 1970s cars was stifled until required by government regulation. Did you know that? Deja vue.
An old fact repeated. 1994 GM was given US government money to build a hybrid. Where is it? Deja vue 1970s GM. Demonstrated are examples - common to the many reasons for high oil prices. But again, how would a trucker's strike solve any of this? Another reason: American dollar is dropping like a rock due to corrupt American economic policies of six and more years. A trucker's strike cannot solve what extremist anti-Americans (ie people who voted for George Jr) have done to America. Time to pay for our sins (including "Mission Accomplished").
Will you remember these lessons 30 years from now when another generation promotes a political agenda rather than innovation? But more important, do you learn ten or thirty reasons that discuss why. Or do your eyes glaze over for all but sound byte posts?
Back to the thread topic, it's not so much the engine power, it's the gearing. That's how I can take only a little more hp than is in the average pick 'em up truck and haul heavy loads long distances that would burn out that motor.
IOW adapting to changing loads. How do automakers solve that problem with obsolete technology engines? Bean counters makes engines bigger to burn more gas - the V-8 engine. Why? Innovation harms profits; an MBA principle when profits (not the product) are more important.
What makes the hybrid a potential solution? Same reason why 1930 diesel electric locomotives obsolete the steam engine. Technology was that well understood for that long. Adapt a smaller engine smarter to changing loads means more energy in each gallon of gas, instead, does productive work.
Fools want to solve this problem by inventing mythical fuels (hydrogen), or price controls, or taxing the oil companies. But the concept - a solution - is demonstrated by even in trucks.
Again who do we blame for high diesel prices? From the NY Times of 14 May 2008:
Oil Refiners See Profits Sink as Consumption Falls
The rising oil prices have led to a sharp drop in refining profit margins, or the difference between the cost of oil and the cost of gasoline. These margins, at $12.45 a barrel on average, are 60 percent below their year-ago level, and in the lower half of their five-year range, according to a report by UBS.
In response to falling gasoline demand and rising costs, refiners have cut their production rates. Refining utilization rates, for example, slumped to a low of 81.4 percent in the second week of April, compared with 90.4 percent at the same time last year. Earlier this month, refineries were running at 85 percent of their capacity.
So the refineries are manipulating output to increase the profit margin and oil at $126 a barrel has nothing to do with it? please.
So the refineries are manipulating output to increase the profit margin and oil at $126 a barrel has nothing to do with it? please.
That is what TheMercenary believes. Not what was posted or reported. Reality - prices are clearly not set by oil companies. Many oil companies are making less profits due to high oil prices. It was not difficult to read. But it was not 'sound byte' logic. It only required TheMercenary to even read the report.
Many oil companies are making less profits due to high oil prices. It was not difficult to read.
Where was that? My recollection from the news was that they are making record profits. Cite please.
CNN reported that 30 to 60% of oil cost is from speculation
I've been thinking about doing foreign currency trading...maybe I need to go into the oil speculation market instead.
So I'll throw my speculation into the ring: gas will fall to half its current cost by Memorial Day weekend.
(peeks from behind hands) pssst...did it work? Nah, my ass still hurts.
I actually got 20 mpg last night delivering, which is phenomenal for me.
Now see...hybrids are perfect for such a job. Too bad the customers would think we're rich and stiff the shit out of us. I think part of the reason my tips are down this month is because of the new car.
How much is your average tip, syc? I know what was "good" ten years ago when I worked for a Domino's, but not anymore...
On average, $2.45...that's been steady over the past 2 years.
I work in a varied area...one minute, I'm delivering to $300,000 homes; the next, the hood. Currently, our delivery charge is $2.50, of which I get $2.25...that rate has been the same since just after Hurricane Katrina. So I wind up making about $4.70 a delivery.
I forgot to mention...I just went for a job interview out in the southern suburbs, and decided to see how well I could do mileage-wise. 40mpg at 64mph...the EPA rates the '07 Cobalt at 31. Fuck yeah!
Where was that? My recollection from the news was that they are making record profits. Cite please.
Your recollection is the popular myth some confuse the exception with reality.
Exxon has record profits. If you move $100 of a commodity and make $10, then when a commodity costs $1000, the profit better be $100. That (and not speculation) is why Exxon is earning a less percentage while moving a more expensive product. Record profits but taking a less percentage in profits.
Exxon is one of the best - most productive in this business. If reaping so much benefit, well, why is Exxon's P/E ratio a paltry 12. Average is maybe 14. Apple is 39. Google is 40.
Exxon is the exception. Most oil firms are not doing as well. During every oil spike, that reality routinely gets forgotten by people who only hear what they want to hear. People who want to blame someone rather than themselves.
The source was already cited - NY Times of 14 May 2008.
I forgot to mention...I just went for a job interview out in the southern suburbs, and decided to see how well I could do mileage-wise. 40mpg at 64mph...the EPA rates the '07 Cobalt at 31. Fuck yeah!
GM does this little trick so that the only valid gasoline mileage requires multiple tanks. They forget to put in the hose that lets air out of the tank. Then one tank will be 40 while another will be 28. The naive then only remember the 40.
Let's see. My much larger Honda accord has averaged 31.7 (mostly local driving) over the past 100 gallons. 40 MPG is standard mileasge for Cobalt sized cars even 15 years ago. Even my Honda Civic from 10 years ago did three consecutive tanks of 46, 48, and 47 on the highway. 40 MPG implies that GM engineers were finally permitted to use last decade's technology.
GM does this little trick so that the only valid gasoline mileage requires multiple tanks. They forget to put in the hose that lets air out of the tank. Then one tank will be 40 while another will be 28. The naive then only remember the 40.
You're a lying motherfucker.
Current best mpg for 2008 compact cars, with 1998 mpg in parentheses (some comparable models used):
Chevy Cobalt: 25/36 (Cavalier: 21/31)
Ford Focus: 24/35 (Escort: 24/34)
Honda Civic: 26/34 (30/39)
Saturn Astra: 24/32 (S-series: 24/36)
Toyota Corolla: 28/37 (27/34)
Kia Spectra: 24/32 (Sephia: 21/28)
VW Jetta: 22/29 (21/28)
Mazda 3: 24/32 (26/33)
Nissan Sentra: 25/33 (25/35)
Current best mpg's for subcompact cars, with 1998 mpg in parentheses (some comparable models used):
Chevy Aveo: 24/34 (Metro: 36/44)
Toyota Yaris: 29/36 (Tercel: 27/35)
Honda Fit: 28/34 (n/a)
Kia Rio: 27/32 (n/a)
Mini Cooper: 28/37 (n/a)
Hyundai Accent: 27/32 (25/33)
Nissan Versa: 27/33 (n/a)
Current best mpg for 2008 compact cars, with 1998 mpg in parentheses (some comparable models used):
Chevy Cobalt: 25/36 (Cavalier: 21/31)
Ford Focus: 24/35 (Escort: 24/34)
Honda Civic: 26/34 (30/39)
Saturn Astra: 24/32 (S-series: 24/36)
Toyota Corolla: 28/37 (27/34)
Kia Spectra: 24/32 (Sephia: 21/28)
VW Jetta: 22/29 (21/28)
Mazda 3: 24/32 (26/33)
Nissan Sentra: 25/33 (25/35)
And those numbers come from where? Well understood are tricks GM uses to optimize vehicles for the EPA test rather than for real world drivers. A famous example. Corvettes' computer would change engine performance and bypass second gear when computer detected EPA testing parameters. This to make the Corvettes' EPA mileage higher. To do this, GM sold Corvette's only with automatics. Every five years, GM must resort to a new trick before the old ones become too commonly known.
I routinely get or exceed EPA highway mileage in most cars. But could never get GM's highway mileage. GM has history - numerous decades of outright lying. Suddenly GM is honest? Any claim about a GM product must include details (not above sound byte logic) because GM lies so often.
In a GM dealer, I was told to get out my warranty repair parts. GM sends someone from Detroit to negotiate. A $1 failed part got us between $0.10 and $0.25 reimbursement. DeLorean states same in his book complete with reasons why. Standard GM policy is to create profits. After all, what is the purpose of a company? Its products? Not at GM. GM's concern for profits is why GM has a long history of lying.
Warranty costs dumped on dealers who were making profits. So we did everything possible to not honor GM warranties.
Well, last year, we were discussing this in a Cadillac dealer. A new Cadillac with numerous defects (new car) had just been fixed. Detroit sent out the man. Found two tires that were 2 PSI low on pressure. All warranty reimbursement on that Cadillac denied. Any excuse to dump warranty costs on others. No honest automaker does that. When doing that reimbursement, gas mileage numbers also get ... fixed.
Did you do numbers on that Saturn Astra? It finally has what has been standard all over the world for almost 20 years - the 70 HP/liter engine. So gas mileage increases. So Saturn is competitive? Yes if this is 1992.
Praising GM is what same people were doing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago. Every five years, GM again preaches their new found religion. GM stock shows how bad all GM products have been when products suddenly got better. If GM products are better, then why another $3billion loss just in this quarter? Call me when GM has not been uncovered lying anytime in 5 years.
A friend who has a hybrid reports a repeated 48 MPG. Remember that hybrid that GM promised in 1994 to build in exchange for $million of government money. Honesty says GM admits to doing nothing alongside another admission about how accountants also destroyed the EV-1. Another confession would identify the bean counters (not car guys) who promoted hydrogen as a fuel. Oh. But two years later, GM is suddenly better? They could not even be honest about hydrogen because top management does not even drive cars.
Honesty is not GM which is why every tribute without caveats leaves the lauder with a serious credibility problem.
Cobalt, Cavalier, and Vega are J-body cars. Vega even got Motor Trends' Car of the Year award with same massive hype and praise I now see applied here. Vega was one of the worst vehicles in American auto history. So now they call it the Cobalt. Meanwhile George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" - and the many were also brainwashed as to believe that.
Let's see Chevy Cobalt and same car sold as Cavalier. Bad or Worse ratings for the past six years (according to Consumer Reports) on fuel system, electrical, climate control, suspension, brakes, paint/trim, body integrity, body hardware, and power equipment. Consumer Reports list of "Used Cars to Avoid: Cavalier coup in 2002. 1998 Sedan. Then Cavalier got worse when renamed Cobalt. Avoid all Chevy Cobalts from 2005 and 2006.
Well at least Cobalt did not appear in the 30 worst cars – that included Chevy Astro, Blazer, Colorado, S-10, Uplander, and Venture. GM is getting better but dominates the list entitled “Worst of the Worst”.
Oh. But in one year, GM went from the worst of the worst to better? Not when the top man is a bean counter, does not drive, and got promoted after posting record losses in GM North America. To praise GM as now better is like knowing Saddam had WMDs. In both cases, the numbers say otherwise - including how many reasons why posted here?
CNN reported that 30 to 60% of oil cost is from speculation
A long term contract to provide United Airline with oil is done how? Futures contract - also called speculation. Speculation is buying options (contracts) for oil long in advance. In a world where oil is precious and where so many producers are either unstable (Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq) or who have a history of using oil for political purposes (OPEC, Russia, Sudan), then of course future prices will be so high.
George Sr defined a new world order that made the world so more stable. Under George Jr, our world has become increasingly adversarial to Americans everywhere. Of course futures contracts must be higher. Instability (ie "Mission Accomplished") increase oil prices. Notice how we pay because so many once said, “Screw the French, the Germans, the Indonesians, the Arabs, the Russian, the Chinese, South Americans, …” Those chickens are now roosters – demanding more with the same contempt that George Jr once proclaimed seven years ago. Resulting instability means prices will increase – what some call speculation.
And those numbers come from where?
Here.
1988 Toyota Corolla with 4A-F engine: 59hp/L
1988 Honda Civic with 1500cc engine: 61hp/L
1988 Chevy Cavalier with 2.0L engine: 55hp/L
The Vega was on the H platform, the Cavalier on the J platform and the Cobalt on the Delta platform.
I've driven a Vega
and a Cavalier
and a Cobalt. The Cavalier was a notable improvement over the Vega and the Cobalt over the Cavalier. The automotive press eventually trashed the Vega and always trashes the Cavalier...not so much with the Cobalt. It's been named by Forbes as "one of the best small cars for the buck" and as one of the "
Top 10 Least Expensive Vehicles to Own":
With an EPA fuel economy rating of 24 mpg city/33 mpg highway, the Chevy Cobalt uses more gas than any other model on this list. But its low maintenance and repair costs (only the Honda Fit beats it) compensate for its fuel expenses. Most of all, Cobalt's low depreciation rate of 61 percent (again bested only by the Fit) assures that its lifetime cost of ownership remains low.
If I had had more money to spend, I probably would have went with a Toyota Matrix or RAV4. But I know that GM makes good cars, the GM car I wanted was cheaper than the Matrix and RAV4 and that GM needs to sell cars. As such, they'll be more malleable on negotiations. When April and I bought her RAV4 last year, the dealers were pretty firm...not much negotiation. The Chevy folks? Read my blog posts from earlier this month.
I almost gave up on GM after owning the Malibu. But I like my car, and I like the reviews it's gotten. So far, I can't complain. It's still early, but I think I'll enjoy this car much more than my last one.
Where was that? My recollection from the news was that they are making record profits. Cite please.
Your recollection is the popular myth some confuse the exception with reality.
Exxon has record profits. If you move $100 of a commodity and make $10, then when a commodity costs $1000, the profit better be $100. That (and not speculation) is why Exxon is earning a less percentage while moving a more expensive product. Record profits but taking a less percentage in profits.
The source was already cited - NY Times of 14 May 2008.
Seems like you are now arguing semantics. Whatever. At best/worst we are both correct. I guess it depends on whether you are referring to gross/net or percentages.
DO NOT DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCE - I ALREADY GOT IT.
I have a 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche. (pictures coming soon).
it has the 5.7l V8 FlexFuel engine.
Mileage numbers are not in but are expected to be dismal. My loved one reports about 400 miles/30 gallon tankful.
It does have larger than stock tires so that may be skewing the numbers downwards.
I used to have a Cavalier 3 door. No problems reported with that car or engine. Driver is another matter.
It got fair to middlin mileage. If memory serves, it got about 19 city and 32 highway.
I expect reliability in my Avalanche or be about the same, if not the mileage.
Brian
40mpg again tonight on the highway...35 with the a/c on. I'll take it.
I guess it depends on whether you are referring to gross/net or percentages.
Which then returns to a fundamental question. Who routinely stifled technology for so long as to get us into this problem? Definitely not the oil industry. Personal testimony from Exxon executives - GM (et al) would routinely deny or reject innovations from the oil companies. Even GM engine problems (that never appeared in Japanese products) would get blamed on oil companies. It happened so frequently that everyone here should have understood this. Instead, GM is so good at propaganda that the naive instead blame the oil companies. GM is so good at propaganda that we have one here repeatedly praising GM products.
Solutions for our excessive oil consumption would have been started in the early 1980s. 30 MPG on a large SUV therefore would have been normal. Instead, those same size engines get only 1960 technology gas mileage - even with the better gasolines provided by the oil companies.
I have a 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche. (pictures coming soon). it has the 5.7l V8 FlexFuel engine.
If it was a responsible or innovative product, then it does 399 Hp or more - a technology developed in mid-1970 GM. That year 2000+ product does nothing near to what is minimally acceptable. A 5.7 liter V-8 is a trophy of anti-American mentality. There is no SUV that should need a V-8. But because that GM engine is so crappy and pathetic, then many Americans use the Saddam WMD thinking to know they need a V-8.
Want to see why $5 per gallon gasoline is all but inevitable? Look at the anti-Americans who need 5.7 liter or 5.0 Liter engines.
So what is in the Chevy Suburban/Tahoe/etc? 6.4 liters and 4000+ pounds to move one 200 pound human? Those numbers say 'stifled innovation' in spades. Those numbers say why American will remain in denial until gasoline approaches $5 per gallon.
Flex fuel? From the same fools who said hydrogen was the solution. Problem never was the fuel - blame the oil companies. Problem remains in companies who promote myths (ie need for a V-8) while stifling innovation - GM. No wonder GM was promoting a lie - hydrogen as a fuel.
The engine puts out 320 hp stock. I will be bumping that number up later. I am looking for 400 hp due to trailer towing needs. I would not have bought that SUV unless I needed it. I need to carry a lot of cargo, have off-road capability and tow up to 7000 lbs. The truck meets my needs and my wife likes it besides.
I buy what I need, not what I want, although I must admit I have wanted one of these ever since they came out.
Blah blah blah
Your rant has NOTHING to do with what I posted - why bother quoting me?
BTW, did you get turned down or fired from GM?
So...if I post about the awesomeness of our Toyota RAV4, does that mean that Toyota is good at propaganda?
So...if I post about the awesomeness of our Toyota RAV4, does that mean that Toyota is good at propaganda?
I don't see you posting from known facts. I see you posting myths from GM. If GM products are so good, well, explain why those J-cars have such a bad reputation - even the most recent models?
An honest post would have noted the poor reputation of Cobalts; but yours does not seem to have all those problems. You did not post that. Instead you posted praise of GM – stating the GM makes great products.
So where are these innovations in that J-car that did not exist ten years ago? Oh. That car is only doing what every responsible auto company was doing ten and fifteen years ago. Why so much silence - as America consumes record amounts of energy wastefully and as others instead blame the oil industry.
Tommy, I posted the fact that I got 20 miles per gallon in my Cobalt while delivering pizzas in an urban environment, a 5 mile per gallon improvement over my previous vehicle (a 2003 Chevrolet Malibu).
I then posted the fact that my car attained 40 miles per gallon during a highway drive. Incidentally, I achieved that again last night, which my wife can verify.
I then posted revised fuel economy ratings from the US Government, refuting your statement that 40mpg was standard for compact cars 15 years ago...it wasn't standard 10 years ago, and isn't now. I don't doubt that some of those cars can achieve 40mpg in certain conditions, though...mine does. It exceeds what the government says it should get by 25%.
I then threw in the subcompacts then and now...even those cars aren't rated at 40mpg.
You mentioned that 70hp/L has been standard for 20 years...I posted the hp/L ratings that I obtained from Wikipedia entries for the Civic, Corolla and Cavalier...the ratings I obtained refute your statement.
You then stated that the Vega, Cavalier and Cobalt were J-body cars...again, I pulled information from Wikipedia that refutes that statement. Only the Cavalier was a J-body.
And you can also pull such information from other places besides Wikipedia...that site happened to be the most convenient.
You say that the Cobalt has a poor reputation...in general, I have not seen reports as such. There have indeed been complaints about the interior being cheap and that it is not as fun to drive as other compacts. In addition, the older models apparently did not fare well on crash-test ratings, though it scores well now.
So, Tommy, I posted facts that can be backed up. Can you back yours up?
Ah man, don't harsh his mellow, with facts. :rolleyes:
"facts?? I don't need no stinkin facts...."
"facts?? I don't need no stinkin facts...."
Badges!!! We need Badges!!
:lol2:
From the NY Times of 27 May 2008:
Soaring Fuel Prices Take a Withering Toll on Truckers
More than 45,000 vehicles, or 3 percent of the tractor fleet, have disappeared from the highways since early last year, according to America’s Commercial Transportation Research in Columbus, Ind. That surpasses the last great shakeout, in the early 1980s, when deregulation, along with a recession, high interest rates and the second Arab oil embargo, took out 33,000 tractors. ...
Trucks are also going abroad. Nearly 24,000 used, over-the-highway tractors have been exported since early last year, the Commerce Department reports, or nearly three times the number in 2006.
I noticed that there was a small difference in gas mileage between what my car said (21.2, mostly delivering the last 2 days) and what it actually was when I filled up (20.1). I don't expect the computer to have it perfect, but I decided to see if there was a discrepancy with highway miles. So I took Cleo out on the road this morning...racked up about 70 miles.
Cleo said 37.3. Actual? 40.6.
Those damned people at GM...trying to manipulate gas mileage!
sycamore, is your actual mileage calculated by miles driven/amount of gas to fill the tank? If so, there are several sources for uncertainty and error, particularly if you are only using a small part of the tank. It's better if you keep track over a whole tank, or even several tanks in a row, and try to fill always to the same point (this is easier with a motorcycle than with a car), at the same time of day, same station, etc. for consistency.
I have seen some interesting things about the temp of gas when it is delivered and when it is pumped to your truck. There is a huge gap in volume I believe.
sycamore, is your actual mileage calculated by miles driven/amount of gas to fill the tank? If so, there are several sources for uncertainty and error, particularly if you are only using a small part of the tank. It's better if you keep track over a whole tank, or even several tanks in a row, and try to fill always to the same point (this is easier with a motorcycle than with a car), at the same time of day, same station, etc. for consistency.
I didn't trip over the inconsistency too much...but it piqued my curiosity. Once I saw the inconsistency go the opposite way for highway driving, it didn't even bother me any more. I figured there were some issues such as you mentioned that are totally over my head. :)