Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
2183 messages, Last post on Nov 21, 2009 at 5:13 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: flash11 (Oct 18, 2008 11:02 pm) IMO while it appears that 'GM is buying Chrysler' - or atleast the parts of Chrysler that it wants - it's Cerebus that seems to be pulling the strings with GM as the 'front man'. If it were to happen Chrysler/Dodge would essentially be wiped off the face of the earth. Cerebus is a group of ivory tower elite running numbers day after day. GM is on the street selling products to Joe the Plumber. It's GM that wll bear the heat for the effects of Chrysler/Dodge disappearing. One scenario that I've seen printed is that Cerebus has a gun to GM's head and they've said 'Move or Die'. What gun? It controls GMAC. In August GMAC decided not to offer leases any longer. Some GM stores were doing 80%+ of their business in subvented leases. When those customers came back in to 're-up' they were hit with stupid numbers to stay in a GM vehicle. Last week GMAC told the dealers "No contracts for anyone with less than a 700 beacon and debt to equity has to be in line and no massive negative equity roll-ins". Maybe as much as 50% of the potential buyers at GM stores are being sent packing 'Go see Toyota, they've got 0%." GMAC hold the floorplan paper for about two thirds of all GM dealers. "Do as we say or we pull the plug on these coma patients you call dealers" Cerebus wants 100% of GMAC because it's a financial services company. Cerebus doesnt want to run a sinkhole of an auto company. Cerebus has no feelings toward thousands, literally, of small businesses called auto retailers. If the entire Chrysler/Dodge network and 50% of the GM network were to go out of business that has no bearing on 'numbers'. It has no effect at all on Cerebus' bottom line - especially if it's GM in front taking the heat.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Oct 19, 2008 6:23 am) What some of have to wonder is, if fuel prices were driven by supply and demand why did fuel prices drop as soon as the problem on wall street show up? Could it be that we were once again being played by wall street and big business. They pulled one over on us in the early 70s and they were pulling one over on us now but they got caught when the rest of the balloon popped. Getting back on subject $4.00 gas caused most of us to drive less if we could. To the working poor it made paying for what you had harder. If people were at their credit limit the strain had to show up somewhere and the economy of easy credit started to fall apart. I budgeted this vacation I am on for $4.00 gas. It looks like I will be buying $3.00 gas so when I get home I will have saved 25 percent on my gas bill. I for one would love to see $2.00 gas because I believe it will give our economy a shot in the arm. 7 to 800 billion doesn't seem to have done much except make sure high paying executives and foreign investors got a bail out. Does anyone here believe gas should have cost over $4.00 and the oil companies should have been bringing in the biggest profits ever? If our expenses in buying fuel were going shouldn't their expenses have been going up as well to offset the monster profits? I hope the fuel prices continue to fall. I can afford to travel more and see more of this country.
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Oct 19, 2008 7:11 am) We agree more than disagree. I also believe the price of oil was driven by speculators. Not demand. Look to the big hedge funds for the culprits. I hope they all lose their shorts. I would guess oil to float around $65 for a while.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 19, 2008 12:56 pm) Like you I have a SUV and I drive it for what it was intended to do. It is by far more comfortable than my compact or any sub compact I have ever been in. But I am reasonable and do not tend to drive it around town unless I need to haul something. But those that wished high fuel prices so that we with SUVs would suffer for our decission to get one simply could not see the total effect it would have on our economy. Sure you can get twice the fuel mileage in a Fit but can you afford the food at the supermarket? But the real issue might be what about those of us that would rather not have to drive a Fit? I don't want a system like they have in Europe which is one of the reason I have never desired to live there. Yes we live in a car centric society but that is what we have always liked and I see no reason to desire what I consider a lesser lifestyle. I will do my part and like I said I would love a EV for driving around town. But I don't wish high fuel prices for those that have to work and can't afford a new fuel efficient vehicle. Give me lower fuel prices and I am a much happier consumer. For those who praise the concept of high fuel prices all I as is that they move to some place that offers them their desire I don't share that dream.
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Oct 19, 2008 2:05 pm) I will repeat that those with very narrow vision could see the high price of fuel as a positive. I did not see that in the overall big picture.
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Oct 19, 2008 2:05 pm) From the time you were told or first heard this, how long do you think it takes, to get a lot of people into more efficient vehicles? How many vehicles are there? have the factories been able to switch to small cars yet? and if any did switch, how many small cars could be sold? The answer is there are over 200 million vehicles on the road, and it will take a good number of years (about 10?) before we could switch most people over to something more fuel efficient.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Oct 20, 2008 5:18 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Oct 20, 2008 5:54 am) Plus, it's going to take awhile for SUV's to work their way through to the used car market, where depressed prices might actually make them more enticing to those who would still sacrifice fuel economy for a perceived coolness factor. The bigger, pickup-truck based ones are also relatively simple and durable, so, like the battleship cars of days gone by, will often outlast smaller vehicles which might be more fuel efficient and sensible in general, but can also be more expensive to repair when they do break, and are easier to total out in an accident. While the new car market has changed dramatically, it's still going to take a long time for the big SUVs to fully work their way out of the system. Look at how long it took the old, mastodon-class full-sized cars to get to the point they're not common occurrences anymore. The 2009 model year marks the 30th anniversary of the final "true" full-sized cars. By 1979, the only real mastodons left were the Lincoln Continental sedan/coupe and the Mark V, both of them ~230" long beasts that, if properly optioned, could top 5,000 lb. Yet, those big monsters still seemed a common sight throughout the 80's and even the 90's, although in the 00's I'd say they started really dropping off. About the only time I'll see a big 70's car (and I don't count mine as "big" by 70's standards, as the Chryslers are downsized and the LeMans is a midsize  ) these days is at an antique car show. Maybe the credit crunch and high fuel prices, and increased complexity will get the big SUV's off the road quicker than it did with those 70's cars, though? After all, while an Expedition or Suburban might be simpler and more rugged than a Prius, it's still light years more complicated than say, a '72 Impala. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 20, 2008 6:10 am) With GM killing off the TrailBlazer/Envoy, Toyota the FJ, Ford the Explorer/Mountaineer and Nissan prolly the Pathfinder in the midsized segment there will likely be only the 4Runner, XTerra and Durango left on the market ( and the Durango may have a very very short life ) . Big SUVs will still be around but there will be only 2 or 3 IMO, the Sequoia, the Tahoe and maybe the Expedition. None of these will be big sellers.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Oct 20, 2008 6:55 am) I agree, but I see the Suburban, Expedition, and Sequoia sticking around. I know it probably doesn't cost much to keep a Tahoe around, but it isn't really needed with Lambda based SUVs. There will always be a few around like me that have a family to haul and a boat/camper to tow that want these vehicles. No doubt the sales numbers will never reach what they once were. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
