Car Buyers Flee SUVs, Prius Sales Triple

"Bob Ward" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 19:43:00 -0500, Scott en Aztlán
> > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 May 2005 19:16:13 -0400, Mike Wilcox
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>DTJ wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:07:27 -0500, barbie gee > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>why does everyone think it's ONLY about money saved?
>>>>>what about gasoline saved?
>>>>>we can make more money, we can't make more oil...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We sure seem to be. We discover more new oil every year than what we
>>>> use.
>>>
>>>Nope, last I heard we are only finding one new barrel for every two we use.
>>
>>Actually, I recently heard about some new oil pocket discovery in
>>Idaho that is apparently pretty large. Of course, just when the
>>details would be useful they escape me...
>
>
> Googling on "Oil discovery Idaho" I found the following:
> http://proliberty.com/observer/20040212.htm
> According to the best estimates of a number of respected international
> geologists, including the French Petroleum Institute, Colorado School
> of Mines, Uppsala University and Petroconsultants in Geneva, the world
> will likely feel the impact of the peaking of most of the present
> large oil fields and the dramatic fall in supply by 2010, or possibly
> even several years sooner.

The 'club of rome' fools claimed that decades ago now.

They got egg all over their collective faces, very spectacularly indeed.

> At that point, the world economy will face shocks which will
> make the oil price rises of the 1970s pale by contrast.

They made the same claim too. Didnt happen.

> In other words, we face a major global energy shortage for
> the prime fuel of our entire economy within about seven years.

Bull****. You watch.

On Fri, 06 May 2005 19:22:01 -0700, SoCalMike wrote:

> Jon von Leipzig wrote:
>> Headline shudda been:
>> "Millions of SUV owners stand pat"
>
> for now. and how many of those millions own, vs lease? the ones locked
> into a lease arent going anywhere for a couple years. theyll be paying
> and paying for the next 2+ years, and if they have any common sense,
> will trade down when the term is up.

They are still better off as if they were going to buy another new car and
be hit with depreciation again. It's a myth that buying a new more fuel
efficient car automatically saves money.

Chris

SoCalMike wrote:

> so expect prices on that stuff to go up as well, if we start refining it
> and burning it in diesel engines on a large scale. in other words, there
> is already a demand for that supply of waste oil. its not like it gets
> dumped in landfills. or does it?

i see your point, but right now i really can't imagine we're going to be
suffering from a lack of **grease**?

On Sat, 07 May 2005 01:10:50 GMT, Bob Ward >
wrote:

>In other words, we face a major global energy shortage for the prime
>fuel of our entire economy within about seven years.

Let's see... Weren't the Chicken Littles claiming that the world would
run out of oil in 30 years back in the 1970s?

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 19:22:01 -0700, SoCalMike wrote:
>
>
>>Jon von Leipzig wrote:
>>
>>>Headline shudda been:
>>>"Millions of SUV owners stand pat"
>>
>>for now. and how many of those millions own, vs lease? the ones locked
>>into a lease arent going anywhere for a couple years. theyll be paying
>>and paying for the next 2+ years, and if they have any common sense,
>>will trade down when the term is up.
>
>
> They are still better off as if they were going to buy another new car and
> be hit with depreciation again. It's a myth that buying a new more fuel
> efficient car automatically saves money.

this could be argued ad-infinutum. if youre driving some piece of ****
truck that goes through a transmission every year and gets 12mpg, youre
probably still better off money wise by driving it and getting the new
tranny every year, compared to car payments and having to have full
coverage.

but if youre going from that to a 3 year old car that gets closer to
36mpg and wont go through trannies, the break-even point is closer,
especially if its paid in cash.

Beeblebrox wrote:
> SoCalMike wrote:
>
>> so expect prices on that stuff to go up as well, if we start refining
>> it and burning it in diesel engines on a large scale. in other words,
>> there is already a demand for that supply of waste oil. its not like
>> it gets dumped in landfills. or does it?
>
>
> i see your point, but right now i really can't imagine we're going to be
> suffering from a lack of **grease**?

youd be surprised. right now, with the biodiesel hobbyists? nah. if they
ever start running trucks boats busses and trains on it, you wouldnt be
able to cook enough nuggets to supply all that waste grease. AND the
dogfood and cosmetic makers would have to find substitute products!

In article >,
Mike Wilcox > wrote:

> DTJ wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:07:27 -0500, barbie gee > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>why does everyone think it's ONLY about money saved?
> >>what about gasoline saved?
> >>we can make more money, we can't make more oil...
> >
> >
> > We sure seem to be. We discover more new oil every year than what we
> > use.
>
> Nope, last I heard we are only finding one new barrel for every two we use.

and then, when we find the *last* barrel, we can't make any more.
"discovering" isn't the same as "creating" the stuff in the ground for
us to find in the first place.
duh.

barbie gee wrote:

> In article >,
> Mike Wilcox > wrote:
>
>
>>DTJ wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:07:27 -0500, barbie gee > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>why does everyone think it's ONLY about money saved?
>>>>what about gasoline saved?
>>>>we can make more money, we can't make more oil...
>>>
>>>
>>>We sure seem to be. We discover more new oil every year than what we
>>>use.
>>
>>Nope, last I heard we are only finding one new barrel for every two we use.
>
>
> and then, when we find the *last* barrel, we can't make any more.
> "discovering" isn't the same as "creating" the stuff in the ground for
> us to find in the first place.
> duh.

What do you mean "creating the stuff in the ground for us to find"?
What's there has been there for millions of years, old dry wells don't
mysteriously fill back up ;~)

bicycle wrote:

> A Prius is closer to a Corolla. Both cars have almost the same
> dimensions, passenger room and comfort so your comparison should be
> between the Corolla and the Prius.
>
> Base price for a 2005 Corolla is $13,680. Base price for a 2005 Prius
> is $20,875. That's a difference of $7195 BEFORE the dealer gouges you.
> Buyers are paying anywhere from $4000 to $5000 over sticker for the
> Prius. Annual fuel cost for a 2005 Corolla is $859, annual fuel cost
> for a 2005 Prius is $562. So you'll pay between $7195 and $12,195 MORE
> for a Prius and save a whopping $297 a year in fuel costs. No way a
> Prius will pay for itself in 4 or 5 years. You'll have to drive a Prius
> 24 to 41 years before you'll save any money in fuel costs over the
> Corolla.
>
> As if that wasn't enough, some used Priuses are selling for more than
> the list price for a new one.
>
> <http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/11/Autos/used_prius/>
>

Interior volume Camry 101.8 cubic ft, Prius 96.2, Corolla 90.3. The
original Prius was smaller, the newer model is closer to a Camry.

Camry's mileage: 33/24
Prius Mileage: 51/59
MSRP Camry(Base model): $18045
MSRP Prius: $20875
Difference: $2,830

If we say 20,000 miles a year (city for comparison sake), that would be
338 Gallons for the Prius, 833 for the Camry. At $2 a gallon that works
out to $776 for the Prius, $1,666 for the Camry, for a difference of
$890 a year, leading to a payback of roughly 3.18 years.

Of course there are lots of assumptions, but its all there from
information from www.automotive.com.

James

On Sat, 07 May 2005 04:16:10 -0700, SoCalMike wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

>> They are still better off as if they were going to buy another new car and
>> be hit with depreciation again. It's a myth that buying a new more fuel
>> efficient car automatically saves money.
>
> this could be argued ad-infinutum. if youre driving some piece of ****
> truck that goes through a transmission every year and gets 12mpg, youre
> probably still better off money wise by driving it and getting the new
> tranny every year, compared to car payments and having to have full
> coverage.

That's correct, but a lot of people want a newer nicer car. If you have a
1 or 2 year old SUV, that should not be your main concern though. If so,
Leasing was the wrong choice anyway.

> but if youre going from that to a 3 year old car that gets closer to
> 36mpg and wont go through trannies, the break-even point is closer,
> especially if its paid in cash.

If someone has leased a new SUV he only rarely will go to a used car.

Now, if I was in that situation Id probably rather buy a second car,
something small, that I can drive in town, and keep the SUV for longer
trips.

I do have a truck, that sees maybe 3000-4000 miles a year, mostly when I
pull a trailer, expect bad weather (snow, ice), have to haul something or
want to go off-road. The mileage in these situations is not my primary
concern, arriving where I am going is. In town I avoid driving it unless I
have to haul something that doesn't fit into my sportscar.

Chris