Re: Of Mice and Men

Posted by BH On 2009/12/10 14:12:17

IMHO, CAFE was a response to the so-called shortage of oil, yet all-too-real spiralling prices at the pump, back in the the 1970s.

Yet, instead of pursuing and promoting viable alternate sources of energy back then, the oil companies just rode the wave of windfall profits from a non-renewable resource. I'm not saying that oil needs to be eliminated as a fuel, but more alternate sources of energy, besides diesel, are needed to help keep things competitive in the marketplace. I don't believe that alcohol as a fuel is the solution, either. Meanwhile, I recently learned that there's a South American country in OPEC that exports the majority of its oil, but powers the majority of its domestic vehicles on natural gas.

Ironically, third parties (outside of oil refining and auto manufacturing) in this country had sucessfully refitted internal combustion gasoline engines in more than one GM vehicle to run on hydrogen back in the mid-1970s, but nothing ever came of it. While on-car storage of hydrogen gas posed some issues, the greater problem was distribution, and guess who controls that? Fifteen years later, talk began to turn to hydrogen fuel cells for (electrically-powered) vehicles instead of hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines, but twenty years after that, they're still talking about hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles. I'm less inclined to believe anything will ever come of that. Meanwhile, when was the last time there was a new oil refinery built in the U.S.?

While I can't cite any specific evidence of direct collusion between the Big Three and Big Oil, there are too many stories about energy-saving technology being suppressed over the decades, and where there's "smoke", there's "fire".

Personally, I suspect that Big Oil worked closely all along, but behind the scenes, with the gubbamint and the automakers to help give the appearance of responsible conservation, while maintaining those windfall profits - at the expense of the consumer and our future. You're probably right about them making more $$$ on all the additional plastic that replaced steel, too.

However, increasingly speculative trading in recent years, which Big Oil was able to cash in on once again, caught the Big Three asleep at the wheel with too many SUVs that got far worse MPG than the large sedans that they seemed to have replaced in the marketplace.

I'm glad to hear that you've gotten such great service out of your 2500, especially with so much towing. GM and Ford have built some pretty tough trucks. However, not everyone wants a big truck, and not everyone wants a fuel-sipping egg on wheels.

Presently, my daily driver is '98 Monte Carlo, which I've owned since new, but was never what I'd call a great car. (I much prefer those big old 1973-77 Montes.) However, it gets nearly 33MPG on the highway and 24-26MPG just back and forth to work and on errands - a good compromise of space and economy. Yet, I can't find an equivalent new 2-door car built by the Big Three to replace it. While there are times when I could use a pickup, as well, I'd be nuts to pay $25K for a regular cab, short-box "work truck" with flat black trim, painted bumpers, and no carpet - especially when there is so much good used iron still out there.

The main problem is that the most troubled automakers aren't making the kinds of cars that enough consumers want, but that's a greatly over-simplified point. How to rectify that situation is the challenge.