View Full Version : A brief history of gasoline consumption in America

5th Jun 2008, 11:09

you crazy yanks ;)

5th Jun 2008, 14:00
I'm not sure the normal rules of supply and demand work with gasoline in an automobile based economy. Sure you can switch to a less thirsty car, but it's not particularly practical to do without a car altogether.

tony draper
5th Jun 2008, 15:30
Dunno,in the movies I seen the US 7th Cavalry managed to tame the west without cars.

Flap 5
5th Jun 2008, 18:52
The west was already quite tame TD before the 7th cavalry got there.

5th Jun 2008, 19:00
Yep, all the Indian (sorry, Native Americans ((sorry, original Asian immigrants (((sorry, cradle of civilization migrants((((sorry, African homo hablis, et al)))) tribes just lived in peace and harmony before the white man came onto the scene.

None of that war over territory, possessions, or women stuff.

Nope, it was good times only back then......................

tony draper
5th Jun 2008, 19:26
There has never, repeat never ever, been such a thing as a tribe of whatever ilk that has lived in peace and harmony, not since we came down from the trees and we were very probably squabbling before we even left the trees.

5th Jun 2008, 20:56
you could just as easy do the same with a large population of central London, namely Chelsea and Kensington where people feel the need to drive a 4x4 even though they're never going to take it off-road.

There's a lot of discussion going on the CNN website at the moment with SUV, Pick-up truck and Hummer owners all defending their reasoning behind their choice of vehicles.

If it's for work, I can fully understand. However, if you're just commuting to and from work and you've just got a couple of kids, then you can manage perfectly well with a regular sized car.

How do these people think their parents or grandparents managed before the times of SUVs and Hummers?

Although you can go to Saudi Arabia and see plenty of trucks and SUVs that consume just as much as the ones here in the US. But because they are right near the source of the petrol/gasoline, they can afford to fill them up.

Reducing the world's need for these natural resources or putting more money into cheaper alternatives would make more sense

5th Jun 2008, 21:17
Reducing the world's need for these natural resources or putting more money into cheaper alternatives would make more sense

Maybe on some levels. If we continue to use and rely on gasoline, but reduce our consumption with more fuel-efficient vehicles, all that will happen is that the price will increase in line with this. Alternatives? Though still in the very early stages, look what's happening re. recycled veg oil. If we could run cars on water, it would merely be reclassified as "transportation water". There's no escape.

Nobody should have to defend their choice of vehicle to anybody. Screw the governmental "Green" crap. If it matters so much, they can use the proportionately larger amount of tax paid by users of larger vehicles, together with the linearly smaller amount that they take from others, and accelerate the research they are undoubtedly undertaking on our behalf to save us from ourselves.

If they think that won't work, then ban all these "Planet Killers" forthwith. No more SUVs to be designed, built, distributed, sold or used from next Monday.

Scooby Don't
5th Jun 2008, 21:26
And how do you propose to legislate to prevent the "unworthy" from driving SUVs???

"I need it for work off-road". Okay, you're exempt.

"I need it for work on dirt roads". Um, okay, you're exempt too.

"It snows here for 5 months of the year, and I need to get to people in emergencies". Well, you're exempt as well.

"It snows here 5 months of the year, and though I only have one place of work, my job is vital". Okay, you too.

"It sometimes snows here, and I go hunting a lot". Okay, okay, you too.

"I pull a trailer!" Exempt.

"My kids ride horses!" Yes, you're exempt.

"We have four kids and three dogs!" Hmm, okay then, exempt.

"I believe in freedom of choice, and I'm already paying for the privalege in gas and insurance." Well, that's just wrong! How can you drive an SUV without a reason???
"Okay, I'll buy one with unibody construction" Sorry, it's still an SUV.
"Fine, I'll get an all-wheel drive wagon with tall suspension." Still sounds like an SUV to me...
"Screw it, I'll just get two regular cars instead, using more raw materials to build and more gas to fuel than if you let me buy an SUV." That'll be fine and dandy!

5th Jun 2008, 21:40
I'm afraid to say, too many have fallen for the hype...

Back when the ultimate status vehicle was the Rolls Royce, bigger and thirstier than most 4x4s, nobody said a bad word.

People are all but berrating themselves for existing nowadays... very sad.

tony draper
5th Jun 2008, 23:03
Load of old bollix when they say they need a large vehicle to take the kids to school and such,bygone days dad managed to get mum, granny grandad plus three kids and the dog into a Ford Anglia.
Of course kids in those days weren't the fat little oinks they are now.

5th Jun 2008, 23:19
Of course it's bollix Tony... bollix answers to fend off bollix attacks on freedom. It was legally available for sale, it was purchased. Justification not necessary.

Maybe the government might like to make available, some of the "special car tax" (and the VAT on top of this tax for chrissakes) when these vehicles were purchased new, to compensate for their huge drop in value since the climate con has prevailed...

UK post-millenium, the land of hate thy neighbour :ugh:

5th Jun 2008, 23:34
Another point worth considering - fifty years ago most cars were powered by about 27bhp. AFAICT this served to transport folk hither and thither (that's not Shirley Abicair (http://www.whirligig-tv.co.uk/tv/children/sabicair/sabicair.htm), BTW).
Admittedly these engines consumed as much fuel as modern high-powered motors, but if current engines were designed to produce no more than 30bhp (and were equipped with 6-speed wide-ratio gearboxes) the specific consumption would be much, much less than is accepted as 'typical' (or even super-economical).

6th Jun 2008, 00:13
However, if you're just commuting to and from work and you've just got a couple of kids, then you can manage perfectly well with a regular sized car.

But if I don't want to 'manage perfectly well with a regular size car?' And I can afford the outrageous bill for gas, are you suggesting that the state should be allowed to dictate my choice?

How do these people think their parents or grandparents managed before the times of SUVs and Hummers?

With a 1-ton Ford pick up. Good times.......................

6th Jun 2008, 00:35

How do these people think their parents or grandparents managed before the times of SUVs and Hummers?


Old 'Un
6th Jun 2008, 03:11
Dushan: Yup, that sums it up perfectly. If you had put a Fiat 500 or a Ford 100E Prefect on the road when "those" were the rage, they wouldn't have even noticed the bump as they ran over it.

Le Vieux

Dan D'air
6th Jun 2008, 03:28
Niiiiiiiiiiiice!!! Now that's a real car :ok:

6th Jun 2008, 07:15
A real ugly car :yuk:

6th Jun 2008, 08:19
Hey! I had one of those.. perhaps a year or two earlier... Bought it as a student, well used, for about $125. It ran great, radio worked, had room to sleep two in the back, 3 or 4-speed manual with overdrive. Very light on fuel (perhaps because one babied the clutch -- It was rapidly heading toward retirement). Ran it several thousand miles on $0.25/gal gas, then sold it for $150. Simpler times, those were.

I expect typical Everyman vehicles of the future will be enclosed 3-wheel trikes with a very thick layer of lightweight, fireproof shock-absorber around the outside fo as to be somewhat safe at highway speeds. Teletubby 2-seaters in the 15-25 bhp range from some flavour of small hybrid..

Somewhat like:

Which may ber found at http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/venture_vehicle.html

6th Jun 2008, 09:24
The expression on the womans face suggests the car is providing oral sex :E

6th Jun 2008, 10:10
The expression on the womans face suggests the car is providing oral sex

Uh, I think you'll find that's two dudes, dude. :ooh::uhoh:

Standard Noise
6th Jun 2008, 13:21
Rumour has it that GM are considering stopping production of the 6.5L Hummer if oil prices remain as high as they are.
If their fuel was as expensive as ours, they'd all be driving 1.1L shopping trolleys.

6th Jun 2008, 13:37
General Motors is closing four truck and sports utility vehicle (SUV) plants in the US, Canada and Mexico as it looks to environmentally-friendly cars.
GM also considering selling its Hummer brand.
(more at:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7433656.stm )

7th Jun 2008, 16:46


7th Jun 2008, 20:17
Why pick on 4x4s as if they were a homogenous class? They're not all gas guzzling 6.5 litre diesels. I drive a 4x4 because I like it. Its very comfortable with a nine-way electrically adjustable driver's seat. The folks in the back have enough leg room not to have to bend their legs and the chihuahuas have enough room to run around without bothering me. The voice activated telephone system automatically picks up my Nokia Communicator when I get into the driver's seat and is truly hands free and the air-con, entertainment centre and navigation systems all respond to voice commands. It consumes petrol rather than filthy carcinogenic diesel and unlike many of the non 4x4 cars that are considered OK, it emits less than the current 200 grammes of CO2 per kilometre limit.

My passengers and myself are surrounded and protected by air-bags, SIPS and collision mitigation braking. I can see over the top of most other cars, and if anyone is daft enough to drive into me, they go under and we ride over the top. Safety for the occupants - that's what its really all about.

So, if I want to drive a 4x4 I'll drive a 4x4 and pay the cost. Bollocks to anyone who doesn't like it, I'm doing absolutely nothing that has the slightest impact on you, so its none of your business. :=

Nick Riviera
8th Jun 2008, 09:05


I also refuse to defend my choice of car. Whenever some eco-nazi asks me why I drive a 4x4 I tell them it's none of their fcuking business.