News item - its expensive to fill up a hummer

Er, eh..uh...gee thanks, now I'm too nervous to say anything....

 

Limiting gas tank size will likely result in people carrying extra gas cans in their vehicle, which is extremely dangerous (vapor pressure + hot day = bad situation. vent it, and the fumes will certainly be smelled by the occupants of the vehicle. put it in the trunk, and the trunk fills up with gasoline vapor = bad situation). The better solution is minimum limits on mpg and increased gasoline taxes.

You will never get me to support smaller fuel tanks for this reason: Almost every summer, I drive with a bunch of friends up to Sequoia National Park. When we enter the park, I make sure my Corolla has a full gasoline tank (13.2 gallons). I have to hypermile around the park, otherwise I will run out of fuel. The are a lot of hills, a lot of road, and few gasoline stations. My data set is greater than ten. We always just barely have enough gasoline. I know there are a lot of people in the world that like to explore back-country, National Parks, and research scientists that like to go even further (think of the Toyota 4-Runners in Artarctica). With transportation and the automobile being one of the great aspects of American life, I find limiting the size of my gas tank analogous to limiting my movement, and thus reducing my constitutional rights. Now before anyone says "you don't have a constitutional right to a large gas tank," keep in mind that I am all for minimum mpg limits, higher gas taxes, and increasing the gas guzzler tax by a substantial amount - and that I'm driving a Corolla (soon to be a Prius c or lift-back) and not a gas guzzling SUV. What I want is a Prius with a gas tank that will allow me to go on long trips without fill-ups when I am in areas that do not have gas stations.

My Corolla has a 13.2 gallon tank, but normally I only fill it half-way full. But for those few times a year that I go on road trips, I need those full 13.2 gallons, and I wouldn't mind a 15 gallon tank for those few times a year trips.
:car:
.

 

To be honest, the better solution is not only to have higher MPG type engines, but simply put more development in alternative power source engines and support an actual alternative fuelup infrastructure. As some have noted, the MPG methodology of measuring the worth of a car is terrible, as it basically assumes a situation where people will hopefully drive consistently, even when they try to drive in varying conditions to get a reasonable number.

From my own experience with my Prius v, this is not 100% true. My first fill up came out to 33.7 mpg... I may be getting 39.3 mpg before my next fill up, but that came from my adjusting how I drive. People will be looking at the EV vehicles to improve their MPG further, but ignoring the salient problem of the LACK of recharging points for certain cities or destinations, which then brings to light the slight problem of actual 'range' of a vehicle in question, again driven based on what people will think they will be able to do but not taking into account the whole YMMV situation which will always come up.

 

I don't know of any recently sold or currently sold passenger cars in the US w/v4 engines. I've never seen one. They're inline 4 (aka I-4 or L-4) or, less commonly, flat 4.

The Congressman's Hummer H3 has either an inline 5 cylinder or V8 engine. Even w/the I-5, it's not particularly efficient at an EPA estimates 14 city/18 highway/16 combined w/an automatic (for an 06).

The real monsters at the exempt from fuel economy testing are the uber-monstrosity battering rams of death, the H2 and H1. The H2 is >6400 lbs and is exempt because its GVWR is >8500 lbs. H1's also exempt due to its GVWR.

H2 I hear typically gets gets 9-11 mpg and has a 32 gallon tank.

It is a backdoor solution but yes, it will inefficient vehicles less desirable and bring make their inefficiency more apparent, but cheaper to fill too.

 

I took this photo with my cell phone recently. Someone spent $124.56 at the pump! ..and that was at $3.95 per gallon. We're at $4.35 now here in Southern California. ($124.56*4.35/3.95=$137.17)

I'm glad I don't drive a Hummer!

 

It should be illegal for someone to buy an 8500 lb vehicle for personal, non-commercial use!

This could be argued through Congress on safety alone. An 8500 lb vehicle is a lethal "road barge" versus normal 2500 to 3000 lb cars.

Commercial truck drivers have commercial drivers licenses that require passing a commercial vehicle written and driving exam, for safety! SUV drivers haven't had this training, aren't required to stay in the right lanes at 55mph, and are lethal road barges posing a death threat to other members of the public!

In summary, anyone who wants to drive a vehicle that weighs more than 4500 lbs should be required to have a special drivers license, stay in the right lanes on the highway, and not exceed 55mph on the highways (just like all the other commercial trucks).

 

The H3 was a joke even for a Hummer, a hummeresque body on a midsize pickup chassis. At least the H1 was an honest monstrosity that couldn't fit into a supermarket parking space, go Amerika!

 

^^
Heh, $3.95/gal? Even Arcos are past $4/gal here now.

Two stations I pass frequently are at $4.25/gal now.

 

Actually, the H2's curb weight at one point was 6400 lbs but eventually ballooned to 6614 lbs. >8500 lbs. refers to the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating.

What's insane is the Ford Excursion (aka Ford Exxon Valdez). Some models are past a curb weight of 7700 lbs (Ford Excursion Compare - Exterior Features - MSN Autos). The crazy part is the I've seen two of those Excretions running around recently. One was being driven solo. The other I couldn't see inside.

Actually, vehicles have become more bloated. Medium sized cars are now in the 3000 to ~3700 lb. range. Per http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s10002.pdf (from Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2010 | OTAQ | US EPA), average curb weight of the 2010 MY fleet was 4009 lbs., no doubt skewed by "light trucks".

Agree about your requirements, although I'd think it should be raised to 5000 lbs. It would make those vehicles less attractive and also force them to burn less fuel. Drivers of inefficienct vehicles are the ones who should be ones tracking their mileage, hypermiling, using LRR tires, having proper driving habits for FE due to gallonage (http://priuschat.com/forums/other-c...eage-no-its-your-gallonage-really-counts.html). Sadly, they're the least likely to do that or even track their mileage.

 

lOL. I have a guy at work, great guy, but hearing him complain last week about gas at nearly $4 when he commutes in a new pickup truck is indeed interesting. He very occasionally does use the bed on that, but I'm sure there could be alternatives.

 

Baah! Them's nothin'
Think how sorry you feel for THIS poor slob when he fills those side tanks:



He must have a very small .... er, wallet
ound:

 

Well said!

This weekend, I had to drive my wife's Camry (2005 XLE V6) for a bit. This used to be my main car but after we bought our Prius, my wife took it over since her commute mostly involves highway driving at steady speed.

After driving my Prius exclusively for the past few months, it was a jarring change. The greater power of the Camry just begs you to hit the gas harder. Without realizing it, I found myself driving a lot faster than in the Prius. whereas the Prius can be driven economically in an ordinary manner, the Camry required a *very* light touch to be driven economically.

As you rightly say, much of the ingenuity of the automotive engineers has been primarily focused on increasing power. This focus is changing but very slowly to be sure.

 

for the first 50 years, there was no reason to think about fuel economy and no one had a clue what was happening to the environment. so the natural development was for whatever the market desired.

 

Actually, it was known what was going on, since 1956.

M. King Hubbert • Hubbert Peak of Oil Production

But just like today, most don't give a rats. Carry on.

.

 

My post about legislating fuel tank sizes was both mocking and sarcastic. Mocking in that people focus on how much money it costs to fill up (well, duh! You have a 20+ gallon fuel tank) and sarcastic because rather than address the root cause of the problem (which is a combination of poor fuel economy of their vehicle), they'd rather have the "government" lower gasoline prices. People need to live with the consequences of their choices, too often they aren't forced to do so, hence continue to make bad choices.

Selling a more powerful, faster, sexy, macho vehicle is a lot easier than a smaller, humbler, fuel efficient one. The auto industry is in the business of selling cars and maximizing profits. The advertising agencies they use are there to convince you that you need to buy a certain manufacturer's car, likely the one they make the most profit from (SUV's).

 

It has nothing to do with 'what makes the most profit' to be honest. In general, Advertising is purely about convincing someone to buy a product, like it is a necessary thing, when it is not. It is about targeting an appeal.

Hence why I fear for the problems with our current Alt Fuel Source Vehicles that are not Gas/Electric at the moment. The biggest pull will be the 'x/x MPG' touting. The problem with this, is that people will assume it will be consistently that, but failing to understand that an EPA MPG is a rough guess and assumes people will be 'smart' enough to drive reasonably consistently in a particular environment.

But as some of us now realize and know now... This is not exactly the case. However, there will still be people who will look or expect what is posted. But add to it, my concern is with the range of some of the vehicles. While people focus on the 'mpg' situation, EV cars with perhaps no 'recharging' ability short of an actual 'grid' based power supply (IE External supplied), people will read the MPG of EV vehicles, thinking they get great miles, which would be true, under the right conditions. Those conditions being that the battery capacity's range far exceeds a typical user's planned driving range given a typical charge time. If a person's one day's travel distance exceeds their charge, they risk stranding or disabling themselves and suffering a long wait to be able to return back should they get to where they need to. And this is more based on the feeling that there is only a small infrastructure to support the new EV vehicles coming out.

 

:rockon:

 

We both agree that Advertising is to convince someone to buy a product like it is a necessary thing when it is not and that it is targeting an appeal. No problemo there.

However, the seller is paying the agency to do the advertising. They are going to spend more of their advertising budget on the vehicles that will garner them the most profits. This is why you'll see a TON of advertising for Trucks, SUV's and sports cars, and much less advertising on smaller commuter type cars. I'm not saying you won't see commercials for the smaller cars, but the number you will see for them is dwarfed by the number of the others. Watch a football game, you'll see 5 commercials for trucks, SUV's and sportscars for every commuter car.

 

But this is changing. A few years ago every car ad mentioned horsepower. Now every ad mentions miles per gallon.

 

This is purely posturing given that it's an election year. Back in 2008 the cost to fill up his Hummer was $4.25 per gallon, on average, rather than the relatively inexpensive $3.55 it is now, on average.

I don't remember him complaining about the occupant of the WH back in 2008. Curious? I wonder why that was?