• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Gas Price Thread

If my calculations are right, noj is paying $8.87 a gallon. I guess I'd be looking to drive a 60 miles to the gallon vehicle at that price as well. And I guess this proves the point that no matter how bad I've got it, somebody else has it worse.
 
It's not the $8 + per gal that hurts as much as the $120 + per tank!

In England there is a four day strike by tanker drivers planned starting tomorrow morning - it will impact about 10% of the stations, however other suppliers may honor the strike in which case it will be more. This issue is that the oil companies with huge profits are not awarding an adequate increase to the tanker drivers (nothing to do with taxes this time).

The message from the govt is "it will be fine if there's no panic buying" so obviously the queues have begun forming. It will be interesting to see what that does to the prices... and bahaviour. I'm certainly willing to quit mowing the lawn for the summer!
 
I just paid $4.49 today...for 87 octane. I just switched my camping reservations this weekend to someplace closer...cutting my round trip by 200 miles. At 16 mpg towing the camper...it adds up. I am now going only 39 miles away. Wanted to spend more time in this area anyway...and less driving is good all the way around.
 
Apparently the Saudi's are going to start pumping a few 100,000 more barrels per day. That's pretty much just p*ssing into the wind as far as having any impact on your price at the pump.
 
ofos said:
Apparently the Saudi's are going to start pumping a few 100,000 more barrels per day. That's pretty much just p*ssing into the wind as far as having any impact on your price at the pump.
Click to expand...

I still don't get how adding supply is going to lower a price inflated by speculation and dollar value issues.
 
boiker said:
I still don't get how adding supply is going to lower a price inflated by speculation and dollar value issues.
Click to expand...
Indeed. My understanding is that the supply is OK, but the worldwide demand is increasing geometrically.
 
mendelman said:
Indeed. My understanding is that the supply is OK, but the worldwide demand is increasing geometrically.
Click to expand...

I was discussing this over the phone with mother the other day. Shedding light on the 1970s oil crisis, OPEC decided to jerk the USA around, but stopped when realizing that the USA was a huge OPEC customer at that point. So we got cheap oil again.

Now China and India are causing more of a demand the market is now jerking the USA around because the demand is so high.

However, with that, the prices in India and China should rise as well. The people in those countries will get priced out a lot quicker than Joe Anybody, American Man and perhaps demand would lower that way.

But who am I? I sleep-walked through Economics class...
 
zmanPLAN said:
However, with that, the prices in India and China should rise as well. The people in those countries will get priced out a lot quicker than Joe Anybody, American Man and perhaps demand would lower that way.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the Indian and Chinese governments subsidize oil costs to their consumers.
 
ofos said:
That's pretty much just p*ssing into the wind as far as having any impact on your price at the pump.
Click to expand...

You know- even if oil was to drop to less than 100 dollars a barrel tomorrow I don't think we would see a significant decline in gas prices at the pump. The oil companies have called America's bluff that we would stop driving so much.
 
The weekend warriors were still out yesterday, heading home from the mountains and small reservoirs to the city (I was driving down to Denver to see Dad). I-25 was still clogged with big trucks towing their RV, some with a second trailer for a boat. It was like gas and diesel were still $1.25/gallon.

What will give out first, the people's desire to drive at 6mpg to "camp" next to a treeless water storage facility in the hot North Colorado wind? Or will their credit cards get maxed out with $250 charges at the local Conoco station?

Sorry, the cynicism and self-loathing is high today. Time to read Desiderata once again... ;)
 
zmanPLAN said:
...........the market is now jerking the USA around because the demand is so high.

However, with that, the prices in India and China should rise as well. The people in those countries will get priced out a lot quicker than Joe Anybody, American Man and perhaps demand would lower that way.
Click to expand...

The dollar is worth more than both currencies. However, as the value of the dollar falls against their currencies (as it has been happening), they earn purchasing power. If the price of oil was solely dictated by the value of the dollar, hypothetically they should see no net effect. Speculators are killing the affordability of oil for all nations and the dollar’s decline makes it all the more worse in the USA.

Also, many countries are subsidizing the price of oil to keep energy affordable to their populace.
 
boiker said:
Also, many countries are subsidizing the price of oil to keep energy affordable to their populace.
Click to expand...

Yes, but, aren't we doing this too?

I read somewhere recently (perhaps this very thread) that US govt. subsidies are worth $3.50/gallon. Therefore without them, we'd be seeing $7.50/gallon (or similar).

Maybe I am just way off though.
 
zmanPLAN said:
I read somewhere recently (perhaps this very thread) that US govt. subsidies are worth $3.50/gallon. Therefore without them, we'd be seeing $7.50/gallon (or similar).
Click to expand...

Rougly 40 cents on every gallon of gas purchased pays a tax dedicated for road or transit improvements in the United States. This is a relatively sticky situation as automobile drivers subsidize transit riders. With the proce of gas being so high, people are driving much less and trading in their larger vehicles for more fuel efficient cars, meaning the amount of money dedicated to fix roads and provide transit is going down at a relatively rapid rate. Tolls also subsidize transportation, but not oil directly. Most transportation agencies are stuggling these days to provide for basic maintenance.

The other place where subsidies occur is in law enforcement. This is recouped somewhat though ticketing offenders. At the federal level it is probably uncalcuable the subsidies to oil producing nations through the defense department. In some metropolitan areas, such as Chicago, there is a sales tax that helps offset the cost of providing transit, but not roads.

A lot of funding goes to subsidizing transportation in general, with more than most realize going to subsidize public transportation. However, I don't think we're subsidizing oil but rather we are subidizing the 'americanization' of oil producing nations.
 
[ot]Cheers zman, good to be back[/ot]

The strike Mary mentions has been and gone, with no massive impact, although you got the usual profiteering - I read of one station in Devon (I think) which was charging £1.99 per litre. There's another one planned for later in the week.

Bim, thanks for doing my workings out!
 
DetroitPlanner said:
Rougly 40 cents on every gallon of gas purchased pays a tax dedicated for road or transit improvements in the United States. This is a relatively sticky situation as automobile drivers subsidize transit riders. With the proce of gas being so high, people are driving much less and trading in their larger vehicles for more fuel efficient cars, meaning the amount of money dedicated to fix roads and provide transit is going down at a relatively rapid rate. Tolls also subsidize transportation, but not oil directly. Most transportation agencies are stuggling these days to provide for basic maintenance.

The other place where subsidies occur is in law enforcement. This is recouped somewhat though ticketing offenders. At the federal level it is probably uncalcuable the subsidies to oil producing nations through the defense department. In some metropolitan areas, such as Chicago, there is a sales tax that helps offset the cost of providing transit, but not roads.

A lot of funding goes to subsidizing transportation in general, with more than most realize going to subsidize public transportation. However, I don't think we're subsidizing oil but rather we are subidizing the 'americanization' of oil producing nations.
Click to expand...

There are numerous tax advantages given to oil companies (where the biggest subsidies lie). There are deals made all the time for cheap or free land (or access to) given to develop pipelines, etc.
 
CJC said:
There are numerous tax advantages given to oil companies (where the biggest subsidies lie). There are deals made all the time for cheap or free land (or access to) given to develop pipelines, etc.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Me being a humble transportation bean counter sometimes forget those things.
 
Is opening up coastal waters to offshore drilling going to actually help with oil prices? It seems to me that it is certainly going to help the oil companies make more profits, but I'm not so sure that it will do anything for oil prices.
 
imaplanner said:
Is opening up coastal waters to offshore drilling going to actually help with oil prices? It seems to me that it is certainly going to help the oil companies make more profits, but I'm not so sure that it will do anything for oil prices.
Click to expand...

I was trying to find the answer to this today. Based on EIA numbers, there does not appear to be any proven costal reserves beyond what they are already accessing from Texas and Louisiana. Flordia has something like 64 million barrels available. That's like spitting in the ocean. The daily world-wide demand is 80 million barrels a day!

I'd like to know if someone was able to find better data.

I was also thinking that if we had tapped these reserves earlier, we would have only lowered the price more when the prices were already low. We would've consumed more, and this whole oil crisis would have been delayed 6 months to 1 year. I hate hearing people bash the environmentalist as they were the sole cause of our energy problems. It appears that ANWAR, for instance, is about 7.7 billion barrels. It could be much higher (12 billion) or lower (5 billion) depending on what is technologicaly extractable. Furthermore, I'm concerned that the rates of production wouldn't be high enough to lower prices. In my quick search, estimates range up to 1 to 1.5 million barrels daily-- or less than 5% of our daily consumption (and less than 2% of worldwide consumption).One thing it would surely do is make someone a lot of money.
 
Last edited:
Shurb even said it would not effect prices now, but later down line with lower energy costs. Gotta love the speculation market here. This guy and the neo-cons are idiots. How is more oil going to ween us off our dependency? That's like saying to a crackhead that you need more crack to break an addiction.
 
Van Halen had it right in their 1993 Right Now video.... and it continues to ring true.


Right now, oil companies and old men are in control
 
The 5 largest US oil companies made 36 billion dollars in profit (combined) over just the first three months of the year according to this article
 
imaplanner said:
The 5 largest US oil companies made 36 billion dollars in profit (combined) over just the first three months of the year
Click to expand...

When i pay 4.60 at the pump this makes me feel great knowing that i have 35% of my 401k invested in the "energy fund." My rate of return in this investment has been almost 18% over the last 2 years.
 
Yeah, but...

I have mixed feelings on the Oil Profit Issue.

Sure the oil companies are making TONS of cash right now and raking in huge profits while the rest of America feels the blunt of rising energy prices. But, they have every right to make as much dough as they can/want. If you owned a business, you'd want the same stuff.

I think it is just the way they are going about things and the arrogance the executives portray when confronted about this.

Typically, when other corporations are making record profits, you really feel nothing different in your everyday life. But oil is so engrained in everything we do/use/live in the USA that record prices and profits affect more people than other companies.

Just shows how far things have gone.
 
zmanPLAN said:
Typically, when other corporations are making record profits, you really feel nothing different in your everyday life. But oil is so engrained in everything we do/use/live in the USA that record prices and profits affect more people than other companies.
Click to expand...

This a main reason why many nations have nationalized their oil production. It's a public utility. A reasonable profit is acceptable, but a large profit is not.

Did you know that the oil companies margins are fairly thin compared to a lot of industry? They're profits are as high as they are due to VOLUME of production. The margin has very little to do with it. Oil companies also benefit from some of the best tax incentives around. Money is available for exploration, research, etc. That subsidy is killing the consumer.
 
Had an interesting conversation with a fellow who owns/operates a gas station here in town. Seems he only makes .04 on the gallon and like many others is trying to find ways to save some cash as many stations are closing due to high cost to them. He was telling me that one of the big problems for the small operations is the high cost of credit card fees to the tune of 6-8 HUNDRED bucks every day and going up all the time. he said one of the ways hes tried to stay afloat and help out his community is he lowers his prices several cents after the rush Friday night and raises them late Sunday night, he lets his regulars know so they stock up cheap and he hits the commuter with the higher cost. Interesting

I know where Ill be going to buy gas on the weekends and to have my car fixed
 
boiker said:
This a main reason why many nations have nationalized their oil production. It's a public utility. A reasonable profit is acceptable, but a large profit is not.

Did you know that the oil companies margins are fairly thin compared to a lot of industry? They're profits are as high as they are due to VOLUME of production. The margin has very little to do with it. Oil companies also benefit from some of the best tax incentives around. Money is available for exploration, research, etc. That subsidy is killing the consumer.
Click to expand...


It is a public utility and it really should be treated as such IMO.

As to your second point. I know that's what the oil companies keep saying - but I don't know that I believe it. For one thing, oil demand hasn't risen significantly since last year. This article says that US oil demand has decreased over the first few months of this year.
 
imaplanner said:
It is a public utility and it really should be treated as such IMO.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah... a 'public resource' ... but it ain't finite. Once upon a time we had north sea oil but everything I read says it's getting down to dribs and drabs... Somehow I can't imagine Scottish devolution getting as far along as it has if they had Saudi-like deposits!

US oil demand has decreased over the first few months of this year.
Click to expand...
Isn't the issue world-wide demand?

But - the strike here is over, queues are gone and it's back to normal here at £1.29 per litre for diesel. Traffic was pretty quiet on Mon & Tue, but back to normal today. Anyway, it's so bl**dy wet and cold I don't really want to ride my bike anyway.

Cheers fellow sufferers!
 
maryindevon said:
Isn't the issue world-wide demand?
Click to expand...


Maybe I'm completely off target but it seems to me that the higher crude prices are an issue of world wide demand whereas the higher pump prices are a complex web of crude prices, taxes, and profit. The US companies having such a significant profit so far this year while US demand is down seems a little fishy if the explanation for their profit is only that the volume is what creates that huge profit. I'm also having a difficult time figuring out how $2 a gallon gas at 100 dollars a barrel translates into 4.50 a gallon gas at 140 a barrel - or why when it drops to 130 a barrel the pump prices don't go down.
 
imaplanner said:
Maybe I'm completely off target but it seems to me that the higher crude prices are an issue of world wide demand whereas the higher pump prices are a complex web of crude prices, taxes, and profit. The US companies having such a significant profit so far this year while US demand is down seems a little fishy if the explanation for their profit is only that the volume is what creates that huge profit. I'm also having a difficult time figuring out how $2 a gallon gas at 100 dollars a barrel translates into 4.50 a gallon gas at 140 a barrel - or why when it drops to 130 a barrel the pump prices don't go down.
Click to expand...

When was gas at $2 a gallon while oil was $100 a barrel?

Gas and oil prices certainly aren't entirely linked of course, but I can't see domestic demand edging down by a percentage point or two doing much of anything to prices of either. We still import a decent amount of actual gasoline as well (because of our restricted refining capacity).
 
CJC said:
When was gas at $2 a gallon while oil was $100 a barrel?
.
Click to expand...

Apparantly never:-$. It looks like it was about 60 a barrel when it was 2 dollars a gallon.

But apparantly a barrel makes about 20 gallons of gas. Which means that at 140 a barrel gas would have to be 7 dollars a gallon to even make up for the cost of crude much less refining and transportation? Now I'm really confused.
 
imaplanner said:
Apparantly never:-$. It looks like it was about 60 a barrel when it was 2 dollars a gallon.

But apparantly a barrel makes about 20 gallons of gas. Which means that at 140 a barrel gas would have to be 7 dollars a gallon to even make up for the cost of crude much less refining and transportation? Now I'm really confused.
Click to expand...

The contract resets month to month. The last month didn't expire at $140 (I think it was in the $120s?) The upcoming month will expire around $135 (at current rates).

Also, other products are generated besides gas: kerosene, lubricants, deisel, etc.

Expect gas prices to creep up another 10-15 cents over the next month.
 
@ Resticted refining operations.

People say that our gas prices are high because the environmentalists are hampering efforts to buil new refineries.

I call BS on this one.

Since when are the oil companies (and the governmental officials that love them) admitting failure to the environmentalists? Seems they have had the upper hand on the environment for a while. I call this pandering and scare-tactic mongering.
If the oil companies wanted to build more refineries, they could certainly do so. They have not let the environmentalists stop them yet.

...and with that, I am off to work.
 
boiker said:
The contract resets month to month. The last month didn't expire at $140 (I think it was in the $120s?) The upcoming month will expire around $135 (at current rates).

Also, other products are generated besides gas: kerosene, lubricants, deisel, etc.
Click to expand...

So is there an easy way to determine the correlation between barrel and pump prices?
 
imaplanner said:
So is there an easy way to determine the correlation between barrel and pump prices?
Click to expand...

I'm a lowly planner, not an economist :)

Today I was starting to realize that I haven't heard anything from the other half of cyburbia regarding this issue. I would really appreciate hearing from Illinoisplanner and Michaelskis what they think of the recent call for more domestic drilling. I don't want to troll or attack, just discuss the options and review data.

If the environmental costs can be managed and the government invests or requires major changes to urban development policy/transportation policy which will decrease our oil use over the next 5 years. Then I lean that we should exploit our domestic resources. But if we are using this as stop-gap to attempt to maintain the status-quo, we are only setting ourselves up for a bigger shock later when our last-ditch domestic supplies turn sour or run dry.
 
boiker said:
If the environmental costs can be managed and the government invests or requires major changes to urban development policy/transportation policy which will decrease our oil use over the next 5 years. Then I lean that we should exploit our domestic resources. But if we are using this as stop-gap to attempt to maintain the status-quo, we are only setting ourselves up for a bigger shock later when our last-ditch domestic supplies turn sour or run dry.
Click to expand...

I saw a vid on YouTube yesterday where a guy explained that our habitat (developed, urban/suburban landscapes) is more important than the far-off habitats of ANWAR (his example) or Colorado's Roan Plateau (my example). Therefore we should use all the oil from those areas first (without thought to vital ecosystems being destroyed) but this is after we use the oil from out strategic petroleum reserve first.

Also he said that Iraq owes us for the "freedom" (my quotes) we gave them and should sell oil to us (once we repair the infrastructure we destroyed) to us at 40% below market value.

I think that drilling can occur on domestic lands but I think that the environmental costs are higher than what could be provided.

Isn't the reason we are getting oil from others now because there isn't a whole lot left in the US and what is left is hard/expensive to get?
 
Interesting Article:

HEADLINE: Dearth of Ships Delays Drilling of Offshore Oil
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.html?ref=todayspaper

HIGHLIGHT:
the world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years.

Demand is so high that shipbuilders, the biggest of whom are in Asia, have raised prices since last year by as much as $100 million a vessel to about half a billion dollars.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the number of trained and available crews for both the ship and drilling crew.
 
zmanPLAN said:
I saw a vid on YouTube yesterday where a guy explained that our habitat (developed, urban/suburban landscapes) is more important than the far-off habitats of ANWAR (his example) or Colorado's Roan Plateau (my example).
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that. Today on CNN I overheard the reporter talking about the possible levee failure that could impact East St. Louis (withhold the 'and the big deal is?' comment:)) The reporter went on to say: "...and we're not just talking about flooding fields, we're talking about a casino, and the potential of 50,000 residents being impacted." My jaw hit the floor as I realized that the media just doesn't get it at all. A casino may provide jobs, but it is not a vital resource. The cost of lost food production is a much more significant issue than that of a casino/hotel.

Isn't the reason we are getting oil from others now because there isn't a whole lot left in the US and what is left is hard/expensive to get?
Click to expand...

I think you're right. In a previous post, my back of the napkin numbers show that less than 5% of our daily use would be replaced by drilling in ANWAR and off-shore if they are drilled and pumped aggresively. That is less than 2% of the worldwide daily use. That will not affect the market prices. Also the numbers estimate that there is only 5 years or so of reserves available if aggresive drilling and production takes place. That's not sustainable. That's panic mode stop-gap. We need a MAJOR overhaul in how we run our economy and how we get our energy. It needs to be done now and can't be put off for 5 more years.

Also- I support McCain's position to build 45 new nuclear reactors. That will help us transition or reduce our dependence on oil. The potential is certainly there for terrorism or meltdowns, but I think that it is a manageable risk.
 
boiker said:
I think you're right. In a previous post, my back of the napkin numbers show that less than 5% of our daily use would be replaced by drilling in ANWAR and off-shore if they are drilled and pumped aggresively. That is less than 2% of the worldwide daily use. That will not affect the market prices. Also the numbers estimate that there is only 5 years or so of reserves available if aggresive drilling and production takes place. That's not sustainable. That's panic mode stop-gap. We need a MAJOR overhaul in how we run our economy and how we get our energy. It needs to be done now and can't be put off for 5 more years.
Click to expand...

This just goes to show you that the plan of becoming "oil independent" and drilling our US soil for petroleum could maybe be a solution to not raise oil reserves at home but perhaps a last ditch effort for oil executives to make some more $$ before their product is gone (thus augmenting their bank reserves...)
 
Off-shore drilling has always been a back door way of attacking the environmental movement. If they can lessen the rules there, they can lessen the rules in other areas.:-{:-@. It's a way of giving back to the oil companies.
 
Coming into this thread about 4 years late, but here goes.

Regular gas is $1.43-1.49 CDN per litre in Vancouver. So that would be $5.34-5.57 US per US gallon. I think. Should be right. Yeah.

And we've just added a carbon tax that will add about 4 cents per litre to the price, rising to 12 cents per litre by 2012 I believe. That's about... 14 cents per gallon initially, rising higher to 2012. The tax is to be revenue neutral for the government (though not necessarily to the individual taxpayer, this depends on income, driving habits, etc), so there are pretty significant income tax cuts coming online as of July 1st. We (BC) now have the lowest income tax in Canada, beating even Alberta (which is surprising). The government is also issuing a $100 cheque to every adult and child in the province--a climate action dividend--which is, admittedly, a bit of a gimmick to be spent on lightbulbs or beer or something.

*shrug*

Alaska should be left alone for the time-being. The reserves are just too small to bother with. I've heard 5-15 years before it's emptied. You might as well use Canadian oil sands, an area that is already being chopped up anyway. We're second only to Saudi Arabia in proven reserves.

Also--hello again, I've been gone for... 2 years?
 
abrowne said:
Also--hello again, I've been gone for... 2 years?
Click to expand...

[ot]
Welcome Back![/ot]

btw, the answers are coming out: CNN LINK

It seems that the oil companies didn't want to develop the 70 million acres of untapped oil fields (which they can currently drill) because they claimed it was too expensive and they were hoping that the gov would open up cheaper and easier to develop lands for explotation first.

I remember stories back in the early 2000s that claimed when oil hit $50, $60, $70 a barrell it was profitable to drill in deep water and mine tar sands. Now we are at $135 and it's still to risky to develop deep water sites? I know that tapping these oils will take years and make a very diluated impact on the price of oil, but can't anyone be honest and do the best with what they have (i.e. the deep water oil fields).

The government doesn't give ME a handout or make things easier for me if I ask.

"boiker, can you pay for all your bills and such and take care of your family without us giving you monthly stipend of $1000? If so, the government asks you to continue what your doing. In fact, your balance sheet says you have $300 monthly that you don't allocate to anything, why is that?" "well, that last $300 is really hard to spend and if I was given another $1000 every month, I could more easily spend that and save the $300 when it might really be prudent to spend it."
 
Last edited:
abrowne said:
...Regular gas is $1.43-1.49 CDN per litre in Vancouver. So that would be $5.34-5.57 US per US gallon. I think. Should be right. Yeah.

And we've just added a carbon tax that will add about 4 cents per litre to the price, rising to 12 cents per litre by 2012 I believe. That's about... 14 cents per gallon initially, rising higher to 2012. ...
Click to expand...

Here in rural NSW (Australia), the cheapest Unleaded Petrol (Standard Gas) is A$1.629 per litre (= US$5.868/US gallon). And Diesel is A$1.859 per litre (=US$6.685 per US gallon). There has been an increase in price of about 80% over the past 5 years.:-c

Our politicans are whining, "Hey, I wish there was something we could do about the cost of fuel to help the poor taxpayers. But we already doing all we can!":r:

Fuel cost in Australia is based on the Singapore Benchmark - which accounts for 40% of the retail price of fuel. Another 4% covers the cost of transport, wharfage etc. Another 8% is the wholesale and retail margin. The major whammy is the Australian Federal government's excise - a huge 39%. On top of that is the GST (Goods and Services Tax) amounting to 9% of the total price.

This last, btw, amounts to a tax on a tax (for roughly half of it) - which is supposedly illegal. There was a suggestion discussed in parliament of eliminating the GST on the Excise component - which would drop the price a bit over 6c/litre. At least one state premier howled that this would mean a drop in revenue of over a billion dollars - and if adopted, the difference would have to be made up!

Bull and baloney! :-@ And that goes for doing all they can too. The windfall revenue under the excise system, purely from the ever increasing price of fuel has already netted governments additional income far in excess of this puny reduction - which they apparently couldn't accept lest the government revenue be reduced!
 
Anyone else find that the Chrysler Corporation's new ad campaign to Save You from High Gas Prices rubs you the wrong way?

Maybe it is the arrogance of DaimlerChrysler, or perhaps to rampant promotion of consumption... for some reason I just don't like it.

Anyone help me pin down my feelings?
 
zmanPLAN said:
Anyone else find that the Chrysler Corporation's new ad campaign to Save You from High Gas Prices rubs you the wrong way?

Maybe it is the arrogance of DaimlerChrysler, or perhaps to rampant promotion of consumption... for some reason I just don't like it.

Anyone help me pin down my feelings?
Click to expand...

It's a nice little marketing campaign/gimmick they have isn't it? I think it's limited to 15000 miles per year @ $2.99 per gallon and your car/truck is rated at 24 mpg highway. That translates to a rebate (if you will) $1868.75 per year - if my math is right - so for 3 years its a $5600 "rebate" by a different name.

Anyway that's my take on it.
 
It may just come down to their whole advertising campaign for the last couple years. I don't know. Just don't like it.
 
Planit said:
It's a nice little marketing campaign/gimmick they have isn't it? I think it's limited to 15000 miles per year @ $2.99 per gallon and your car/truck is rated at 24 mpg highway. .
Click to expand...

I don't get it... if your car does 36mpg, doing 15K miles and paying $4/gal it will cost you $1666. If you get a chrysler doing 24mpg running 15K miles and paying $3 per gal it's $1875. So isn't it still cheaper if you get the better milage car? If the price of petrol goes down, you're even better off with a high milage car. But... if petrol goes over $4.5 per gal, then being locked in at $3/g starts to save money (as long as the deal lasts). So I guess it's just appealing to short-termism? (If the prices go up and up however I would thinnk the second-hand value of a 24mpg car is going to be less and less as more effecient cars come on to the second hand market.

I'd love to see one of the adverts - is it on the web anywhere?

PS - If I've comepletely screwed up on the maths :-$
 
here is a commercial, thanks to youtube.

Chrysler $2.99 Gas

Something about it just doesn't add up for me. I think that maryindevon is correct in assuming that it is certainly shrot term.

In my mind, Chrysler makes poor quality cars and is behind the curve on gas milage. Their ads run to cater to the American "Joe 6-Pack" consumer and their whole, "Yeah, it's got a Hemi" ad campaign appeals to the last vestage of American motorist who takes pride in a thristy, but fast, engine. The whole premise of "Saving you from high gas prices" is to evoke a sense of entitlement to the Dodge/Jeep/Chrysler driver that high gas prices are the fault of someone else and the buying a thristy Dodge Durango will be a good choice.

The cheap gas lasts for 3 years, coincidentially, so will your DaimlerChrysler vehicle. :p

Maybe that is it? Something not as progressive.

I mean GM is advertising gas-free, gas saving, and alternative fuel vehicles (and making a good attempt at catching Honda and Toyota) but Dodge seems to be holding on... to something.

I will be talking about something else now as I apparently have been having trouble typing the name Chrysler.
 
Wow - just watched the advert! I know what grinds - its that happy, in-your-face upbeat tone of voice in the advert.

FUEL? NO PROBLEM! HEY DRIVE & DRIVE BIG WITH OUR BIG CAR. WE'LL KEEP YOU HAVING HAPPY TIMES LONG AFTER THE PARTY'S OVER AND SOME LITTLE PEOPLE ARE CLEANING UP THE MESS. DON'T WORRY - DRIVE BIG - PAY LATER.

Oh well, I'll keep this in mind over the next few years.... all I can say is if/when petrol is $8/gal I don't fancy the second hand value of the giant jeep thingies. Of course if it's swings and roundabouts and you're back at $3/gal then you're suckered anyway.

But RESPECT. If you offered most of UK drivers $3/gal (as opposed to $8/gal that we pay) they'd take it up no matter what the vehicle!
 
Back
Top