Ain't anybody gonna buy a diesel 1/2 ton or Suburban when Diesel is at a $ 1 premium over gasoline.

I have parked my 2500HD diesel mostly and driving the Wifes old 97 Tahoe

World events may shoot GM's new Diesel in the head.

it will go down once the normal non winter diesel comes back into place

The Diesel pricing issue is world demand. We are importing both gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel because we have not built refineries for 20+ years due to the envirowackos.

The rest of the world uses far more Diesel than we do and demand is high so.. we are paying a big premium for Diesel.

Projections have gasoline @ $ 4 by June and diesel @ $ 5.25


As long as we have no drilling/refining policies, this isn't going to change.

With GM loosing Billions, they will be quick to recognize this and they will not hesitate to put on hold the 4.5 Duramax, they simply cannot afford a mistake.

I think you are looking at the situation in reverse. GM sells a bunch of 2500 and 3500 diesel pickups with the 6.6l DMax and many of those are not used for heavy towing. The 4.5l "Duramax Light" may be a very viable vehicle in the market for most applications where diesel power is needed over 1/2 ton gas alternatives but not the extra power and hungrier 6.6l - especially with high fuel prices.

You will not see me parking my truck that gets 25% better MPG than gas version to save a few penny's a week. My cost per week would be just that a few cents difference even at 1 to 1.25 more per gallon.

I hope your wrong but we all have to drive to work.

Car pooling is the smartest option.

You will not see me parking my truck that gets 25% better MPG than gas version to save a few penny's a week. My cost per week would be just that a few cents difference even at 1 to 1.25 more per gallon.

I hope your wrong but we all have to drive to work.

Car pooling is the smartest option.

Agreed! I computed it! I'm still saving my diving my 2500 duramax over my 1500 4.8!

We will see.

GM is facing the worst year for car sales in over 10 with this building recession.

How long can a Company loose Billions of dollars and still invest in new plants, new engineering and other expenditures ?

If GM perceives that demand isn't there for the 4.5, that expenditure will be quickly cut.

The problem with the supply is not that they have not built any more capacity for refining. The problem is that they had to spend billions on making the diesel cleaner burning. Every oil comany had to build new processes to remove more and more sulpher from their product. This was billions invested without being able to make one single dime in return for the money spent. The problem is with the environmental regulations that have been pushed through Congress.

You are right on that point but the problem is also that we are importing Diesel, Jet-A and Gasoline because of a lack of capacity. This is why Diesel and Gasoline prices don;t exactly track crude oil prices and why Diesel is at a premium. The rest of the World, especially Europe and China have a much higher % of Diesel vehicles and demand is high. With World demand for Diesel high and the US importing Diesel, premiums are being paid.

Lack of refinery capacity, no drilling in anwr or off Florida's coast and clean Diesel standards are all the work of the Socialist-Environmentalists who own the Democtratic Party lock, stock and barrel.

I'll betcha GM scrubs the 4.5 this year... simple economics

Just my opinion

Its hard to feel bad when all the oil companies report record profits time and time again. We are paying more and they are making more. I am sure that their big profits have more than paid for the investment to clean up the fuel.

Wasn't trying to evoke sympathy or shill for the Oil Industry. Just stating a few facts. I don't like it anymore than anybody else does.
Fred

I have said this before, it is not so much a lack of refining capacity but rather the configuration of the US refineries....they produce about 23 gallons of gas and about 9 gallons of diesel per crude barrel.

Even in the latest EIA govenrment report they alluded to this by saying since overall Gasoline consumptions is DOWN and inventories are UP, the oil companies are starting to idle the refineries because to produce the diesel they end up with gasoline and have to store it.

And they are having problems finding gasoline storage.

And we cannot import diesel...no one has any.

Solution is to reconfigure the refineries(like Europe is doing right now)....but unless the govt steps in to force them...and of course we all know that will be another excuse to raise prices for everyone...the refineries will act very slow on this.

This is the nail in our economy's coffin.

I checked the mpg's on my 99 sub and I am at 13. That is highway/city combined. I can get 15.5 around town and 21 hwy (@65:drop_mout) So it is a toss up. Can't get a car cause the family won't fit so we just deal with it.

I need to buy a storage tank and start making my own bio diesel refinery! Get a machine that makes over 40 gallons a day, pick up oil from local joints, store it in one tank and make it and store it in another..hhmmmmmmmmmmmm.......Need money:D

I personnally would love to buy one of these trucks, who cares about the cost of fuel. Your going to pay it one way or the other. I would think this truck would be better on diesel for (2) main reasons, (1) smaller engine & (2) Lighter weight chassis. Imagine the break show you could do from stock, I believe the HP #'s I've seen have been around 310 hp @ 650 Torque. That's impressive, imagine adding a big tune to spice life up some more! :D

im with golddigger on this one. . .BIODIESEL. . .its easy to make, easy to get supplies, and it burns clean. . .so if GM can make a motor that supports it safely we can all start eating french fries and saving the oil for fuel. . .problem solved!

im with golddigger on this one. . .BIODIESEL. . .its easy to make, easy to get supplies, and it burns clean. . .so if GM can make a motor that supports it safely we can all start eating french fries and saving the oil for fuel. . .problem solved!

The problem is there only so much dirty french fry oil out there... But I do feel every bit of that should be made in to bio!

For me I figure the cost of bio, making it and buying all the stuff isn't worth it. You would need a few guys in on the stuff, unless you drive allot and have a ton of extra time.

Amazing how the oil companys keep reporting record profits and a lot of folks cannot fit that into the picture,ever hear of monopoly.One thing for sure,pricing diesel fuel at a premium is greatly affecting our economy and ultimately how we will live in the future.I think we got trouble and it aint going away!

One of the Big Oil Companies needs to buy out GMC and Then Cut the Price of the Trucks and make $$$$$$$$$$$ off of the Fuel Sales. Just like all the Printer Companies Do. :)

One of the Big Oil Companies needs to buy out GMC and Then Cut the Price of the Trucks and make $$$$$$$$$$$ off of the Fuel Sales. Just like all the Printer Companies Do. :)

cell phone service providers, too.

Just for fun...Let's look at some real numbers.
Take Exxon's 2007 profit and divide it by the total gallons of fuel they sold. Dont even worry about the other energy products they make, just do fuel.
Get back to me on what that adds up to. I'll bet it's less than 10 cents/gallon. It would be interesting to see.

$39,500,000
divided by... well I cant find a total. But I did find several sources stating oil companies profits come out to 8 to 10 cents on every gallon of fuel sold. The Govt on the other hand adds between 50 and 78 cents per gallon
Boy, theyre really screwing everyone huh?

The Diesel pricing issue is world demand. We are importing both gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel because we have not built refineries for 20+ years due to the envirowackos.

The rest of the world uses far more Diesel than we do and demand is high so.. we are paying a big premium for Diesel.

Projections have gasoline @ $ 4 by June and diesel @ $ 5.25




BINGO! And guess where those product cargos get sold in our current state of weak currency? Not here! We had to bid up to get the cargoes when we had a strong dollar, now we have to throw even more money to make up the difference with our weak dollars. When the dollar is weak foreigners can buy our products at a currency discount. What oil products you might ask? Nymex futures. Enter the $110.00 BBL of crude oil. The weak Dollar is KILLING us.

The Diesel pricing issue is world demand. We are importing both gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel because we have not built refineries for 20+ years due to the envirowackos.

The rest of the world uses far more Diesel than we do and demand is high so.. we are paying a big premium for Diesel.

.
Correct, the world uses far more diesel than gas. World demand has gone way up, especially in China and Korea.

It was 30 years ago we built the last refinery in the USA. Several have been tried to be built since. BUT the EPA stops it, or the Not In My Back Yard groups stop it. Bush wanted to build refineries on closed military bases, but the not in my back yards stoped those projects.

The problem with the supply is not that they have not built any more capacity for refining. The problem is that they had to spend billions on making the diesel cleaner burning. Every oil comany had to build new processes to remove more and more sulpher from their product. This was billions invested without being able to make one single dime in return for the money spent. The problem is with the environmental regulations that have been pushed through Congress.

The problem is that they have not built a new refinery in 30 years. In those 30 years, over 100 refineries in the USA have been shut down. In those 30 years the USA demand for fuel, gas and diesel has gone up, but our production capacity has gone way down.

The USLD fuel compounds that problem. USLD takes longer to refine that the old LSD took. ULSD also cost more to refine.

You are right on that point but the problem is also that we are importing Diesel, Jet-A and Gasoline because of a lack of capacity. This is why Diesel and Gasoline prices don;t exactly track crude oil prices and why Diesel is at a premium. The rest of the World, especially Europe and China have a much higher % of Diesel vehicles and demand is high. With World demand for Diesel high and the US importing Diesel, premiums are being paid.

Lack of refinery capacity, no drilling in anwr or off Florida's coast and clean Diesel standards are all the work of the Socialist-Environmentalists who own the Democtratic Party lock, stock and barrel.

I'll betcha GM scrubs the 4.5 this year... simple economics

Just my opinion

Correct we do import refined diesel. Also true about world demand for diesel.

Lack of refining capacity is the biggest problem. Heck producing wells in the Gulf of mexico are being throttled back. The reason is, the refineries at the end of the Marianas pipe line are running at full capacity. We can pump more crude oil, than they can refine.

Its hard to feel bad when all the oil companies report record profits time and time again. We are paying more and they are making more. I am sure that their big profits have more than paid for the investment to clean up the fuel.

Big Oils profit margin is exactly the same as it was 1 year ago, or five years ago, between 9 and 10% which is very low by business standards.

First you must understand record profits are due to record sales. Sure sales are down in the USA, but they are way up in China, Korea, and most of South East Asia.

Something else one should understand. That is who really makes all the money in Oil.

Oil company profits are taxed at 41%. So they keep 59 cents of every dollar they earn, and Uncle Sam gets 41 cents. So Exxon, Shell, BP, Conaco, Cheveron and the rest all give 41% of their profit to Uncle Sam. So who is really making the big money?

Do not forget that on top of that Uncle Sam gets about 60 cents a gallon in tax at the pump. Do not forget that uncle Sam made 100 Billion on oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

Again tell me who makes all the money.

I have said this before, it is not so much a lack of refining capacity but rather the configuration of the US refineries....they produce about 23 gallons of gas and about 9 gallons of diesel per crude barrel.

Even in the latest EIA govenrment report they alluded to this by saying since overall Gasoline consumptions is DOWN and inventories are UP, the oil companies are starting to idle the refineries because to produce the diesel they end up with gasoline and have to store it.

And they are having problems finding gasoline storage.

And we cannot import diesel...no one has any.

Solution is to reconfigure the refineries(like Europe is doing right now)....but unless the govt steps in to force them...and of course we all know that will be another excuse to raise prices for everyone...the refineries will act very slow on this.

This is the nail in our economy's coffin.

Please Name one refinery in the USA that is sitting idle, not counting the two that are down for repaires due to receint fires.

The exact same oil companies run the refineries in Europe. The government is not forcing that, demand is what forces what they produce. The problem also lies in most the refiners have not been finished with the updates needed to produce ULSD. It takes time to change the refining process.

Amazing how the oil companys keep reporting record profits and a lot of folks cannot fit that into the picture,ever hear of monopoly.One thing for sure,pricing diesel fuel at a premium is greatly affecting our economy and ultimately how we will live in the future.I think we got trouble and it aint going away!

A Monopoly is where one or two, maybe three companies control the market. There are a whole lot more than four big oil companies. You have BP, Shell, Cheveron, Citgo, Conaco, Exxon, Valaro, and many smaller ones.

Most people who have record sales, end up with record profits....That is exactly how it works.

Check out gold trends. That is what our dollar is based on. The cost of Gold and the cost of a barrel of crude have risen at very similar rates for the past 50 years. A barrel of crude is has only gone up less than 10% more than gold over that time span.

One of the Big Oil Companies needs to buy out GMC and Then Cut the Price of the Trucks and make $$$$$$$$$$$ off of the Fuel Sales. Just like all the Printer Companies Do. :)

LOL. Could work...but then hybreds would not be worked on.

$39,500,000
divided by... well I cant find a total. But I did find several sources stating oil companies profits come out to 8 to 10 cents on every gallon of fuel sold. The Govt on the other hand adds between 50 and 78 cents per gallon
Boy, theyre really screwing everyone huh?
What your talking about the government making on big oil is only the tip of that ice berg. That which you point out is the tax at the pump.

Do not forget the 41% tax on the profits of each and every oil company.

Do not forget the 100 plus Billion the government makes on the oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

I'm still waiting for all that free oil from the "blood for oil" campaign in Iraq.

FLTSI DAVE

You seem to miss the main point I was making. You produce GASOLINE and DIESEL together.

That is the way the refiners are working.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

ABove article is this week in petro and read how they allude to the fact that Europe is going through the same problems, but now it is worse since they use to send us their surplus gasoline..and we do not need it anymore..we have plenty now.

In the article it states they are making less crude oil runs...not sure if that means idling or lowering output...but I think it means they are not running the refinery at full tilt anymore because they are losing a market(US demand for gas is dropping) for the gasoline that they produce.

So why do they have excess gasoline....Hmmm???

You would think that since they drive mainly diesels over there that they would produce more diesel right? Well I guess not.

I believe that is the problem happening here.

The refineries have been configured to produce more gasoline, that is why we imported so much gasoline from Europe after Katrina, because they have excess gasoline and normally that went to exports for us.

Also:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm

This is the latest I found on refinery output...it is down.

I cannot find the government article I read where they stated the refineries are slowing down...maybe idling was too harsh for you...because they are producing gasoline along with diesel...and there is excess gasoline in the market so they have to find a place to store it.

So my point was that the problem, as I see it, is refinery configuration. We need to reconfigure to produce MORE diesel and less GASOLINE for a give barrel of Crude.


Oh yeah one more thing...this whole line of crap about not building more refineries....well in California Shell has been doing its best to CLOSE their refineries....hmmm.. I wonder why.

The state FORCED them to sell one of them...to FLYING J.

$39,500,000

You need to add 3 more zeros to the end of that figure. proffit in billions, not millions.

If they are using a distillation column, they CAN'T make more diesel than gasoline. There's only so much distillate fuels produced from the barrel of crude and the lighter components become gasoline - no way to push them back to distillates. You can, however, rerun the distillates and break them down further into lighter components and gasoline. That's the rub. You can make more gasoline in multiple passes, you cannot make more heavy products which only come out in one pass. Imagine it as screening gravel - you can tumble large gravel to make smaller gravel, you can't make small gravel into large gravel.

So the question is idle:

Can the refineries be reconfigured to produce more than the 9 gallons of diesel per barrel of crude? Sounds like no, or not much more? Did i read your response correctly?

With all this talk about the diesel cost then don't vote for Clinton. She will not help the problem(cause she is a socialist and she would probably have Mike Moore as a VP)! Here in michigan we have Jenny granholm from Canada! She needs to go back(sorry just my to cents)! I feel we as AMERICANS need to get together and stand up as a people! When prices on fuel go up 75 cent a gallon in 3 weeks that's just wrong!

The problem with the supply is not that they have not built any more capacity for refining. The problem is that they had to spend billions on making the diesel cleaner burning. Every oil comany had to build new processes to remove more and more sulpher from their product. This was billions invested without being able to make one single dime in return for the money spent. The problem is with the environmental regulations that have been pushed through Congress.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I learned from a guy who works for a ''big oil company'' that the crude coming from Alaska is already low sulfur. Also, once all the refineries were set up to remove the sulfur from the other crude, it is easy and cheap. This was a few years ago he told me this stuff, and he also made it a point to tell me "all you Diesel guys are gettin' screwed...

So the question is idle:

Can the refineries be reconfigured to produce more than the 9 gallons of diesel per barrel of crude? Sounds like no, or not much more? Did i read your response correctly?

You've got it. The distillation column uses the boiling point of the different product streams to separate them. You "boil off" the lighter products first and you can't proceed with the process until they are stripped. The proportion of them in the bulk is constant and you have to take them off. Distillate fuels come out at higher temperature and what remains cannot produce more distillate fuels and will only break down further at higher and higher temperature into lubricating oils and heavy byproduct (asphalt). Once you have taken out the lighter products, you can't take light product and economically or effectively convert it "back" to produce more distillate fuels. You get the same ratio of gasoline to diesel out of every barrel of crude.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining2.htm

Correct me if I'm wrong. I learned from a guy who works for a ''big oil company'' that the crude coming from Alaska is already low sulfur. Also, once all the refineries were set up to remove the sulfur from the other crude, it is easy and cheap. This was a few years ago he told me this stuff, and he also made it a point to tell me "all you Diesel guys are gettin' screwed...

Different crudes have different sulfur contents, but Alaskan crude, while being "low sulfur" in comparison to other crudes is NOT at 15 ppm sulfur and ALL crude requires extensive hydrocracking to get it to ULSD levels.

idle,

Is it your opinion that the US refineries are now limited in the amount of diesel they can produce because of the basic refining process?

In other words...Crude oil per barrel will only produce so many gallons of diesel and that the gasoline market is needed in order to basically reduce the price of all products derived from that unit barrel of oil.

Also, since the gasoline market is dropping then the refineries, in order to get more diesel, produce more gasoline in an oversupplied market...would that not tell you the refineries are going to start to cut back(due to the weak gasoline market?)

If all true...the future of diesel is somewhat dim...in that we can only support so many diesel consumption as long as there are:

1) existing market for the gasoline produced

2) additional refineries built BOTH gasoline and diesel consumption that go up proportionally.

Well, this might be good for Biodiesel, Coal to diesel and Gas to diesel process which simply make alternate diesel fuel.

Have you guys seen this http://www.shell.com/ check out the GTL items.
What do you think?

If they ever sold Diesel produced by liquifying gas somewhere in Europe, it didn't become public there.

Agreed! I computed it! I'm still saving my diving my 2500 duramax over my 1500 4.8!

I'm not in everyday driving. Unloaded, I average about 1 mpg better than I did with my 1500 unloaded. That means I am paying more for fuel.

I realize that's not an apples/apples comparison. I am doing much better than the guys with the 2500hd gassers.

If the rule of thumb is that diesel is about 30 - 33% more fuel efficient than a comparable gasser, then even with diesel at about a 20% premium, you still save a little at the pump. But if the price of diesel exceeds a 33% premium at the pump, then there will be no savings in MPG.

FLTSI DAVE

You seem to miss the main point I was making. You produce GASOLINE and DIESEL together.

That is the way the refiners are working.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

ABove article is this week in petro and read how they allude to the fact that Europe is going through the same problems, but now it is worse since they use to send us their surplus gasoline..and we do not need it anymore..we have plenty now.

In the article it states they are making less crude oil runs...not sure if that means idling or lowering output...but I think it means they are not running the refinery at full tilt anymore because they are losing a market(US demand for gas is dropping) for the gasoline that they produce.

So why do they have excess gasoline....Hmmm???

You would think that since they drive mainly diesels over there that they would produce more diesel right? Well I guess not.

I believe that is the problem happening here.

The refineries have been configured to produce more gasoline, that is why we imported so much gasoline from Europe after Katrina, because they have excess gasoline and normally that went to exports for us.

Also:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm

This is the latest I found on refinery output...it is down.

I cannot find the government article I read where they stated the refineries are slowing down...maybe idling was too harsh for you...because they are producing gasoline along with diesel...and there is excess gasoline in the market so they have to find a place to store it.

So my point was that the problem, as I see it, is refinery configuration. We need to reconfigure to produce MORE diesel and less GASOLINE for a give barrel of Crude.


Oh yeah one more thing...this whole line of crap about not building more refineries....well in California Shell has been doing its best to CLOSE their refineries....hmmm.. I wonder why.

The state FORCED them to sell one of them...to FLYING J.

You can only make a given amount of distillate fuel which is heavy fuel from crude. Distillate fuel is Diesel. What is left after first run, can be made into gas, but not diesel.

Could be they are selling cause they are in California, not a good place to do refining business. But read youre link.

Not a new refinery has been built in 30 years in the USA....That is a Fact. Over 100 refineries have been closed, another Fact.

Many old refineries have been expanded. Yes, our production capacity is up http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mocleus2m.htm
1985 capacity was 15,659,000 and Jan 08 it is 17,588,000, or just under 2 million more barrels a day.

Now we will look at distillate fuel (diesel) barrels per day
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mdiupus1m.htm
1985 diesel use 107,419,000 barrels this was January
2008 diesel use 130,480,000 barrels this again January
Looks like just over 23 million more barrels of diesel fuel used, with only 2 million barrels more capacity:eek:. Or a net loss of 21 million barrels when compaired to demand.

Now you want to look at gas..barrels per day
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgfupus1m.htm
1985 gas use 196,799,000 barrels for January
2008 gas use 273,235,000 barrels for Jan
So gas use is way up to, 23 million plus barrels per day:eek:

So we have a huge loss of capacity.

If they are using a distillation column, they CAN'T make more diesel than gasoline. There's only so much distillate fuels produced from the barrel of crude and the lighter components become gasoline - no way to push them back to distillates. You can, however, rerun the distillates and break them down further into lighter components and gasoline. That's the rub. You can make more gasoline in multiple passes, you cannot make more heavy products which only come out in one pass. Imagine it as screening gravel - you can tumble large gravel to make smaller gravel, you can't make small gravel into large gravel.

Good explanation on how it works:)

Correct me if I'm wrong. I learned from a guy who works for a ''big oil company'' that the crude coming from Alaska is already low sulfur. Also, once all the refineries were set up to remove the sulfur from the other crude, it is easy and cheap. This was a few years ago he told me this stuff, and he also made it a point to tell me "all you Diesel guys are gettin' screwed...
Low sulfer is a relative term for crude. It is low sulfer, he is correct, but no were near low enough to be 500 ppm which we can no longer sell. We can only sell 15ppm

Different crudes have different sulfur contents, but Alaskan crude, while being "low sulfur" in comparison to other crudes is NOT at 15 ppm sulfur and ALL crude requires extensive hydrocracking to get it to ULSD levels.The all also required it to get to LSD levels of 500ppm.

Here is where stuffe comes out of crude during refining

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/images/dist%20column.gif

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/refining_text.htm

The core refining process is simple distillation. Because crude oil is made up of a mixture of hydrocarbons, this first and basic refining process is aimed at separating the crude oil into its "fractions," the broad categories of its component hydrocarbons. Crude oil is heated and put into a still -- a distillation column -- and different products boil off and can be recovered at different temperatures. The lighter products -- liquid petroleum gases (LPG), naphtha, and so-called "straight run" gasoline -- are recovered at the lowest temperatures. Middle distillates -- jet fuel, kerosene, distillates (such as home heating oil and diesel fuel) -- come next. Finally, the heaviest products (residuum or residual fuel oil) are recovered, sometimes at temperatures over 1000 degrees F

Here is how a typical barrel of crude oil breaks down.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html


http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/images/barrel.gif



One barrel of crude oil, when refined, produces about 20 gallons of finished motor gasoline, and 7 gallons of diesel, as well as other petroleum products. Most of the petroleum products are used to produce energy. For instance, many people across the United States use propane to heat their homes and fuel their cars. Other products made from petroleum include: ink, crayons, bubble gum, dishwashing liquids, deodorant, eyeglasses, records, tires, ammonia, and heart valves.

I got a ? why are people still heating with fuel oil ? shouldnt that be changed over to propane or natural gas or anything else ?

During 2007 Exxon/Mobil had total revenues of $404.552 Billion dollars.

From that amount, they paid approximately $160 Billion in Royalties to various government entities here in the US and abroad.

They also paid $29.874 Billion in Income Taxes.

Additionally they had $174.078 Billion worth of expenses, which covered, explorations costs, drilling costs, transportation, and yes REAL ESTATE AND EQUIPMENT TAXES.

This left $40.610 Billion dollars net profit which is only 10% or 10 cents on the dollar.

..............(Billion $)
TOTAL REVENUE : $404.552 (Worldwide)
ROYALTIES PAID:-$160.000 (to Government entities here and around the world)
OTHER EXPENSES:-$174.078 (Also includes Road Taxes, Real Estate and Equipment Taxes)
INCOME TAXES. :-$ 29.864
NET PROFITS...: $ 40.610 (10% of Total Revenue)

A large portion of those profits are paid out as dividends to stockholders.

If your employer has a retirement program, or you have investments in a 401(k) or IRA, have investments in mutual funds or have a life insurance policy, you are directly or indirectly A STOCKHOLDER in one or more corporations. You better hope and pray that those companies are able to make a profit because if they don't, your future retirement programs are ALL going to be worthless.

So, we can clearly see, that various government entities throughout the US and the rest of the world received $189.864 BILLION worth in Royalties and Income Taxes, plus untold amounts in Real Estate and other taxes, while they invested ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the business. Exxon/Mobil on the other hand, risked it all and only got 10% return for their troubles. Now you tell me, who is ripping us off? :mad:

I got the idea of what we get out of a barrel of crude, what I did not understand, until Idle explained it, is that we really cannot get more diesel out of a barrel than what we are getting.

More refining capacity, unless there is a different process, is not going to get us more diesel if the demand for gasoline is dropping. To get the diesel refiners need to sell the gasoline also.

Say that drops comes from people buying hybrids, smaller car, and people like us who love diesel trucks.

So probably all these years things have been ok because the proportion of diesel to gasoline fit well within the refinery capacity PLUS gasoline imports. The imports show we do not have enough refinery capacity for gasoline.

But as the whole world turns toward diesels for fuel savings...I think there is a more fundamental problem than just refining capacity.

I guess you can say build more refineries and we can 'export' our excess gasoline..but I would think that reduces profit since Europe has excess gasoline also.

Correct me if I am wrong here but it looks like we need processes that just produce DIESEL.

Like coal to diesel, biodiesel etc.

All,
Check this out on the web to enable us to convert Algae into Diesel.
This is 3 years out or so however, they are trying to find the best species
of the 14,000 known algea for the best yeild.
These projects are being funded by Shell Oil and Chevron plus more.
If you Google Diesel fuel from algea you wil find all the companies working on
this reneable fuel.

Bfastcars:grd:

One question is what they make from the crude oil, another question is what they can get from it. Since the demand for gasoline is higher than the demand for Diesel, the refineries are probably set up to produce more gasoline than Diesel by converting the heavier stuff into lighter stuff.

See http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/ref_image_simple.htm#Average%20U.S.%20Refinery%20Y ield

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/refining_text.htm:

"After simple distillation alone, the output from a crude oil like Arab Light would be about 20 percent of lightest, gasoline-like products, and about 50 percent of the heaviest, the residuum. After further processing in the most sophisticated refinery, however, the finished product output is about 60 percent gasoline, and 5 percent residuum."

So they could get way more than only 7 gallons of Diesel from a barrel, but they would have to change production for that.

So they could get way more than only 7 gallons of Diesel from a barrel, but they would have to change production for that.

No, you are wrong. The process breaks down the crude (longest hydrocarbon chain) into the shorter chains. Diesel is diesel and you can only break down to its chain size. You CAN recycle the diesel and break it into smaller chains (more gasoline) but you can only get so much diesel out of a barrel of crude. It's like cutting a 12 foot 2x4, you can make two 6 foot studs (diesel) or you can make four 3 foot chunks (gasoline) either by cutting it all at once or recutting the two 6 footers in half, BUT you can only make TWO 6 footers.

Yup, algae biodiesel is probably the most promising of all technologies.

Even the Pentagon also has some money in funding research.

It is pretty amazing what they can potentially yield from this stuff that grows in black water.

I believe that chevron, exxon etc are wise to be in the game of Algae biodiesel.

During 2007 Exxon/Mobil had total revenues of $404.552 Billion dollars.

From that amount, they paid approximately $160 Billion in Royalties to various government entities here in the US and abroad.

They also paid $29.874 Billion in Income Taxes.

Additionally they had $174.078 Billion worth of expenses, which covered, explorations costs, drilling costs, transportation, and yes REAL ESTATE AND EQUIPMENT TAXES.

This left $40.610 Billion dollars net profit which is only 10% or 10 cents on the dollar.


So, we can clearly see, that various government entities throughout the US and the rest of the world received $189.864 BILLION worth in Royalties and Income Taxes, plus untold amounts in Real Estate and other taxes, while they invested ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the business. Exxon/Mobil on the other hand, risked it all and only got 10% return for their troubles. Now you tell me, who is ripping us off? :mad:

Good post Ray. You get it. Now add similar for all the other oil companies like Shell, Cheveron, ConocoPhilips, BP and so on...Then you can really see who is getting the money.

Yet our Coungress is questioning the heads of the Five Biggest OIL companies today:mad::(. And the public is happy congress is trying to fix big bad oil:(. That is like sending a convicted fellon to investigate the robery he commited.

No, you are wrong. The process breaks down the crude (longest hydrocarbon chain) into the shorter chains. Diesel is diesel and you can only break down to its chain size. You CAN recycle the diesel and break it into smaller chains (more gasoline) but you can only get so much diesel out of a barrel of crude. It's like cutting a 12 foot 2x4, you can make two 6 foot studs (diesel) or you can make four 3 foot chunks (gasoline) either by cutting it all at once or recutting the two 6 footers in half, BUT you can only make TWO 6 footers.

Excelent explanation there:D

So if this is all true, then why don't the oil companies use a few of those dollars and run a campaign that shows where all the money goes? At least that way consumers can direct their anger towards the parties responsible. Where does all the tax money go? And don't tell me Iraq, they were getting the same taxes before Iraq was ever an issue.

All wonderful discussion and yes Congress is a bunch of bozos but it still doesn't answer one question and that is why did it rise $.70 in 4 weeks. That is the explanation I want to hear. Also it seems to me that diesel isn't the answer unless consumption is cut drastically because of the limitations of production. I am guessing that is why it works in Europe but doesn't work here. Further more if we cut gas consumption here it would probably screw the Europeans royally as they don't have anybody to sell their excess gas to.

Only long term answer gents is reducing consumption, use trains, telecommuting, mass transit, etc. Trains are a pretty good answer as trucks basically have some what of a free ride because we all pay for the up keep on the roads. I have been telecommuting 2 days a week for years now but I'm afraid that is about the limit to reducing consumption besides cutting down on the stupid trips here and there. A saying comes to mind. It is just all one big shit sandwich and we are all going to have to take a bite!!!!!!!

Here is another way to look at who is getting the money we pay at the pump.

Diesel fuel is selling around here for $4.159 per gallon. Let's look at where our money goes.

Retail Price . . .:$4.159 (At the pump)
Mich. Sales tax. .:-0.236 (6% on top of the other taxes) YES a tax on a tax.
State Road Tax . .:-0.239 (per gallon tax)
Fed Excise Tax . .:-0.244 (per gallon tax)
Retailer . . . . .:-0.050 (retailer's profit)
Price to Retailer.:$3.390 (GROSS SALES)
Oil Royalties. . .:-1.343 (To governments here and abroad)
Income Taxes . . .:-0.255 (paid by Oil Co. to government)
Operating Expenses:-1.462 (Exploration, drilling, transport cost, RE & transport taxes, etc)

Profit to Oil Co .:$0.330 - They pay dividends to their stockholders from this profit. This rewards the stockholders for the risk they take when they invest in the company. Without investments, we get no oil.

As we can see, governments get $2.317 in direct taxes and royalties, PLUS a big chunk of the operating expense in the form of Real Estate taxes, equipment taxes, transportation taxes, in addition to business and income taxes from any profits that the retailer and distributors may have. And these various governments have NOT invested one dime into the business.

Anyone who thinks that fuel prices are going to drop as soon as the Feds impose their proposed windfall profit tax on the oil companies is highly delusional. Higher taxes will NOT lower the price we pay for gasoline and diesel fuel.

If a company does not make a profit, it will eventually go out of business. If this is an oil company, it means that there will be tens of thousands of people who would lose their jobs, and would NOT be around drilling or refining or distributing that oil.

Take away the incentive to make a profit and NO ONE will be willing to risk the BILLIONS of dollars it takes to find, refine and distribute the fuels we need to keep our economy moving. The government CANNOT do it without the oil companies. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is witnessing oil production plummet since he nationalized ( Read: STOLE ) everything from the oil companies who developed the whole industry in that country.

What we need is to drill for the oil we have in this country already. Whether it's in Alaska, or offshore. We need to get started building more refineries and nuclear powerplants immediately. We also need to develop the various energy resources we have like Coal and oil shale.

We have more energy within our own borders in the form of coal reserves than all of the energy contained in the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela COMBINED. We just need to get it out and convert it into usable fuel. Technology already exists for making diesel fuel from coal and natural gas. All this country needs is the incentive to do it.

No, you are wrong. The process breaks down the crude (longest hydrocarbon chain) into the shorter chains.


Ok, but what do refineries actually do? Are they (mostly) set up to break the Diesel down to gasoline, or do they (mostly) go with all the Diesel they can get out of the crude oil?

All,
Check this out on the web to enable us to convert Algae into Diesel.
This is 3 years out or so however, they are trying to find the best species
of the 14,000 known algea for the best yeild.
These projects are being funded by Shell Oil and Chevron plus more.
If you Google Diesel fuel from algea you wil find all the companies working on
this reneable fuel.

Bfastcars:grd:

Just found this...
PetroSun algae farm to begin operation April 1

http://biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2222

It's a start...

Sounds good, in the article I read that they are forming ventures in other countries...maybe this process is further along than they want others to know...at least up to now.

Also another interesting part of the article is that they can get ethanol from what remains of the algae after biodiesel...what a twist!

Ok, but what do refineries actually do? Are they (mostly) set up to break the Diesel down to gasoline, or do they (mostly) go with all the Diesel they can get out of the crude oil?
The are set to get the maximum diesel they can, which is 7 to 8 gallons out of a barrel. Gas yeild is 20 gallons or so from a barrel. They can not get more diesel from a barrel, they could get more gas, and less diesel though.

Here is another way to look at who is getting the money we pay at the pump.

Diesel fuel is selling around here for $4.159 per gallon. Let's look at where our money goes.

Retail Price . . .:$4.159 (At the pump)
Mich. Sales tax. .:-0.236 (6% on top of the other taxes) YES a tax on a tax.
State Road Tax . .:-0.239 (per gallon tax)
Fed Excise Tax . .:-0.244 (per gallon tax)
Retailer . . . . .:-0.050 (retailer's profit)
Price to Retailer.:$3.390 (GROSS SALES)
Oil Royalties. . .:-1.343 (To governments here and abroad)
Income Taxes . . .:-0.255 (paid by Oil Co. to government)
Operating Expenses:-1.462 (Exploration, drilling, transport cost, RE & transport taxes, etc)

Profit to Oil Co .:$0.330 - They pay dividends to their stockholders from this profit. This rewards the stockholders for the risk they take when they invest in the company. Without investments, we get no oil.



Good post, good break down.

People still will not like it, it's so much easier to say big oil is ripping them off. Easier to blame big oil the the Government and thier huge taxes.

Its a nice breakdown but when you have oil companies making 100+ billion in profits, according to this breakdown who else is gettin rich. Our Govt. why are prices still so high. Mainly because they too are making serious $$$$. Why would they want to lower prices or force any type of lower prices when they are making bank off of it just like the oil companies are. Gotta pay for that war somehow. The question was brought up the other night on CNN about politicians in bed with oil companies. I think the ? should be who isnt in bed with them.

Good post, good break down.

People still will not like it, it's so much easier to say big oil is ripping them off. Easier to blame big oil the the Government and their huge taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I still think we are being ripped-off, but the biggest villain is our own government.

What people need to realize is that even if Exxon removed ALL of their profit from the pump price, the price we pay would STILL be $3.829. :(

If we could drill for the oil reserves we have within our own borders (like ANWR and off-shore), we would be cutting down on the royalties we are paying to the Arabs and other countries. Additionally, it would create jobs here.

But "Big Oil" is an easy target for the MSM and politicians to blame. Easy to come up with nice and short sound-bites and bumper stickers.:rolleyes:

Coal to Diesel technology is just months away:D

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414014526.htm

Coal to Diesel technology is just months away:D

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414014526.htm

Ummm yeah. Months away 2 years ago? :think:
:)

Don't get me wrong, I still think we are being ripped-off, but the biggest villain is our own government.

What people need to realize is that even if Exxon removed ALL of their profit from the pump price, the price we pay would STILL be $3.829. :(

If we could drill for the oil reserves we have within our own borders (like ANWR and off-shore), we would be cutting down on the royalties we are paying to the Arabs and other countries. Additionally, it would create jobs here.

But "Big Oil" is an easy target for the MSM and politicians to blame. Easy to come up with nice and short sound-bites and bumper stickers.:rolleyes:
I did not have you wrong, I too think we are bing ripped off, but it's by the government in taxes on oil

I like the algae idea. I posted a link to this article a few months back.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

I have a question about the coal to diesel. What is the percent yield? And, what types of refining does it require?

So let me get this straight: We are paying stupid prices for diesel due to an overstock of gasoline keeping us from producing enough diesel fuel? I managed to pump $47 worth of unleaded into a VW yesterday. I'm not buying that story. If there were such a huge overage of gasoline, the price would drop to increase demand and clear some of the overage out of storage facilities. Americans have slowed their gasoline consumption because they can no longer afford to burn it for no particular reason. It's simple economics, if I can't sell you somehting at an inflated price and I have an excess of it, then I lower the price until you are willing to buy it to make room for the products that are in demand(diesel).
Gas isn't going down, and I don't believe for a minute that there is any overstock. What I do believe is the media has done a fantastic job of creating an artificial recession to further their liberal political agenda. Congress is now controlled by those guys with the cute little jackass for a party symbol, and the news media may as well be the democratic campaign headquarters. With an election up in the air, they have done their level best to make the republicans look bad. I distinctly remember the media preaching gloom and doom of the impending recession over and over until the American public bought into it. Now, guess what, they have done a great job at it. Our economy is in the toilet, everybody blames the president, and Americans are running scared, afraid to spend any money. Mark my words, if a democrat is elected president, the economy will miraculously do a 180 degree turnaround. Congress will likely cut fuel taxes considerably, and CNN will tell you that all is well so you will once again feel comfortable spending your money. Abra-cadabra, no more recession, the new democratic president is the best thing since George Washington himself, and we are all oblivious to the truth.
Nothing will have changed, just public perception. I'm a former US Army Public Affairs Specialist. I know a good media slant when I see one.
Don't believe me? Here's some food for thought. Everyone is aware that after five years of being in Iraq that we recently lost our 4,000th soldier to this conflict. CNN has been more than happy to report on the senseless slaughter of US soldiers and how we are losing the war. Therefore, everybody believes that the Iraqi conflict has been a massacre and that we have lost the war. During the 35-day WWII battle of Iwo Jima, there were more than 27,500 allied casualties. I don't recall anyone ever saying we lost that one. The difference? CNN wasn't there to tell you what you should think in those days.
Back to the topic at hand. Our economy is suffering because we are being told that it is. If you are frightened into not spending your hard-earned money, you are going to stop doing so. The economy WILL suffer. We are being fed a continuous barrage of garbage from our television sets that is meant to influence your vote and shift the political balance to the left. The value of our dollar is now a joke, and we are all paying for it at the pump while eating up the latest lie the media sees fit to brainwash us with.
Sorry for the political rant, but it has a lot to do with this particular topic.

That would be why I don't watch the news and the TV I do watch is via DVR.

You will not see me parking my truck that gets 25% better MPG than gas version to save a few penny's a week. My cost per week would be just that a few cents difference even at 1 to 1.25 more per gallon.

I agree!! 2 years ago I went from a 2500 HD CC 8.1 gasser to my dmax. Now even at almost $1 more per gallon for fuel I still spend less money weekly than I did with my gasser, and the trucks are very near identical.

I agree!! 2 years ago I went from a 2500 HD CC 8.1 gasser to my dmax. Now even at almost $1 more per gallon for fuel I still spend less money weekly than I did with my gasser, and the trucks are very near identical.

Correct but you spend at least 5k more for your dmax than the gasser. Since the diesel price is 25 % higher than regular gas but the fuel economy is only 30 % better with the diesel than 5% difference will take a very long time to make up the initial investment...

So let me get this straight: We are paying stupid prices for diesel due to an overstock of gasoline keeping us from producing enough diesel fuel? I managed to pump $47 worth of unleaded into a VW yesterday. I'm not buying that story. If there were such a huge overage of gasoline, the price would drop to increase demand and clear some of the overage out of storage facilities. Americans have slowed their gasoline consumption because they can no longer afford to burn it for no particular reason. It's simple economics, if I can't sell you somehting at an inflated price and I have an excess of it, then I lower the price until you are willing to buy it to make room for the products that are in demand(diesel).
Gas isn't going down, and I don't believe for a minute that there is any overstock. What I do believe is the media has done a fantastic job of creating an artificial recession to further their liberal political agenda. Congress is now controlled by those guys with the cute little jackass for a party symbol, and the news media may as well be the democratic campaign headquarters. With an election up in the air, they have done their level best to make the republicans look bad. I distinctly remember the media preaching gloom and doom of the impending recession over and over until the American public bought into it. Now, guess what, they have done a great job at it. Our economy is in the toilet, everybody blames the president, and Americans are running scared, afraid to spend any money. Mark my words, if a democrat is elected president, the economy will miraculously do a 180 degree turnaround. Congress will likely cut fuel taxes considerably, and CNN will tell you that all is well so you will once again feel comfortable spending your money. Abra-cadabra, no more recession, the new democratic president is the best thing since George Washington himself, and we are all oblivious to the truth.
Nothing will have changed, just public perception. I'm a former US Army Public Affairs Specialist. I know a good media slant when I see one.
Don't believe me? Here's some food for thought. Everyone is aware that after five years of being in Iraq that we recently lost our 4,000th soldier to this conflict. CNN has been more than happy to report on the senseless slaughter of US soldiers and how we are losing the war. Therefore, everybody believes that the Iraqi conflict has been a massacre and that we have lost the war. During the 35-day WWII battle of Iwo Jima, there were more than 27,500 allied casualties. I don't recall anyone ever saying we lost that one. The difference? CNN wasn't there to tell you what you should think in those days.
Back to the topic at hand. Our economy is suffering because we are being told that it is. If you are frightened into not spending your hard-earned money, you are going to stop doing so. The economy WILL suffer. We are being fed a continuous barrage of garbage from our television sets that is meant to influence your vote and shift the political balance to the left. The value of our dollar is now a joke, and we are all paying for it at the pump while eating up the latest lie the media sees fit to brainwash us with.
Sorry for the political rant, but it has a lot to do with this particular topic.

So you prefer that the 2.317 $ profit the government makes for each gallon diesel sold will keep the war in Iraq alive instead of investing it into a better future for our children, better health care ...?

Just compare how much a barrel of crude was before the war started and where it is now, or compare where the economy of this country was before Bush and where it is now... simple math, no CCN needed!

VWhauler

Dude why don't you pull your head out of your behind and join the rest of the world. Incase you haven't noticed diesel is $.80 - $.90 more expensive than gas, that is a huge differential. Normally it's $.30. With the price of a barrel vaulting over $100 and the price per gallon of gas hanging in the area it was when it was $60 - $70 a barrel, I think that shows us plenty that there is something keeping the price "low". I'm not that smart but I thought by now with the price of crude oil we'd be flirting with $5 per gallon and we're not.

Nobody wanted to go to war, Bush lied and just threw us into this mess. Losing 4,000 innocent lives to create a distraction from how shitty a job you're doing running a country is not a good excuse, nor is it ok.

Yes the news favors the democrats, but shouldn't they? In the last 8 years tell me something good the Republicans have done? Name ONE thing that is relative in magnitude to the mountain of CRAP they've dumped onto us!

The Iraq war = a bigger mess than before we ever got there that no one has a clue how to fix. No matter what happens, the most ruthless rebel will eventually take over the region and all we can do is hope that they aren't as bad as Saddam was.

Our economy/housing = They gave money to everyone like it was fuggin free. No one regulated a damn thing and any idiot go a home loan. Not only that they wrote it on an ARM spent ten times more than they should have and never once thought "I wonder what happens when the rate goes up?" Where was your gov't when this was happening? Our dollar isn't worth crap because we don't know how to live within our means and spend too much. Then we have the audacity to complain because we can't pay off our credit cards. Again, not one person had the brains to stop and think "how am I going to pay for this?" This isn't rocket science, you don't need to be a scholar to know what CREDIT is. Look of the definition, it doesn't mean free.

Katrina = do I really need to say anything? I am embarassed of how poorly everthing was handled. Most importantly how little value we placed on the lives of our own brothers and sisters. That wasn't the Phillipeans that we saw on TV.

I feel that the republicans are lucky that they only get bad press for all they've done. Someone to say otherwise isn't in touch with reality.

For all the discussion over the price and quantity of diesel you just need to accept the fact that you're going to pay a lot whether you like it or not. I've towed 11,500# with my 6.0 gas, it did it easily. You can justify things from all angles but in reality 1 in 10 people actually NEED diesel, and that's the hard truth whether you like it or not. The oil industry & government know this and they are laughing all the way to the bank. Supplies are limited, it's one of the easiest fuel to make and they're going to make you pay through the nose for it. Because if you found a way to justify buying the truck in the first place you'll find a way to pay for the fuel.

Until we start doing what's best for each other and our planet instead of what makes us feel good things will only decline.

Well, genius, I can argue every last point you made, but I'm not going to take this thread any further off topic. Especially with the threatening tone you decided to take. :chillpill

Easy for someone to place blame on whoever is in office. But reallity check for all our libs, it is government "PERIOD." I mean come on ,did you see Hillary's $109 Billion income tax returns. They are all in bed with the oil companies and financial institutions. Where do you think all their money comes from? We can only get prices back down and consumer rights back when our government quits screwing its very people that put them in office.:whip:

VWhauler

Our economy/housing = They gave money to everyone like it was fuggin free. No one regulated a damn thing and any idiot go a home loan. Not only that they wrote it on an ARM spent ten times more than they should have and never once thought "I wonder what happens when the rate goes up?" Where was your gov't when this was happening? Our dollar isn't worth crap because we don't know how to live within our means and spend too much. Then we have the audacity to complain because we can't pay off our credit cards. Again, not one person had the brains to stop and think "how am I going to pay for this?" This isn't rocket science, you don't need to be a scholar to know what CREDIT is. Look of the definition, it doesn't mean free.


The last time i looked, we don't live in socialist country. I don't understand why people always assumed that the government has control over the economy. Do you think any president wants his legacy to be a Sh*tty economy? They are scrambling to help the economy any way they can but their influence is limited. If someone should have been regulating the situation, you should blame the banks (most of them are going bankrupt as we speak, i.e. Countrywide, Bear Stearns). I do agree with you on one point, however. We are now paying for not knowing how to say no. If you spend your money like a child grabbing at anything it wants, its gonna be a bad situation in the end.

Easy for someone to place blame on whoever is in office. But reallity check for all our libs, it is government "PERIOD." I mean come on ,did you see Hillary's $109 Billion income tax returns. They are all in bed with the oil companies and financial institutions. Where do you think all their money comes from? We can only get prices back down and consumer rights back when our government quits screwing its very people that put them in office.:whip:

AGREED

So let me get this straight: We are paying stupid prices for diesel due to an overstock of gasoline keeping us from producing enough diesel fuel? I managed to pump $47 worth of unleaded into a VW yesterday. I'm not buying that story. If there were such a huge overage of gasoline, the price would drop to increase demand and clear some of the overage out of storage facilities. Americans have slowed their gasoline consumption because they can no longer afford to burn it for no particular reason. It's simple economics, if I can't sell you somehting at an inflated price and I have an excess of it, then I lower the price until you are willing to buy it to make room for the products that are in demand(diesel).
Gas isn't going down, and I don't believe for a minute that there is any overstock. What I do believe is the media has done a fantastic job of creating an artificial recession to further their liberal political agenda. Congress is now controlled by those guys with the cute little jackass for a party symbol, and the news media may as well be the democratic campaign headquarters. With an election up in the air, they have done their level best to make the republicans look bad. I distinctly remember the media preaching gloom and doom of the impending recession over and over until the American public bought into it. Now, guess what, they have done a great job at it. Our economy is in the toilet, everybody blames the president, and Americans are running scared, afraid to spend any money. Mark my words, if a democrat is elected president, the economy will miraculously do a 180 degree turnaround. Congress will likely cut fuel taxes considerably, and CNN will tell you that all is well so you will once again feel comfortable spending your money. Abra-cadabra, no more recession, the new democratic president is the best thing since George Washington himself, and we are all oblivious to the truth.
Nothing will have changed, just public perception. I'm a former US Army Public Affairs Specialist. I know a good media slant when I see one.
Don't believe me? Here's some food for thought. Everyone is aware that after five years of being in Iraq that we recently lost our 4,000th soldier to this conflict. CNN has been more than happy to report on the senseless slaughter of US soldiers and how we are losing the war. Therefore, everybody believes that the Iraqi conflict has been a massacre and that we have lost the war. During the 35-day WWII battle of Iwo Jima, there were more than 27,500 allied casualties. I don't recall anyone ever saying we lost that one. The difference? CNN wasn't there to tell you what you should think in those days.
Back to the topic at hand. Our economy is suffering because we are being told that it is. If you are frightened into not spending your hard-earned money, you are going to stop doing so. The economy WILL suffer. We are being fed a continuous barrage of garbage from our television sets that is meant to influence your vote and shift the political balance to the left. The value of our dollar is now a joke, and we are all paying for it at the pump while eating up the latest lie the media sees fit to brainwash us with.
Sorry for the political rant, but it has a lot to do with this particular topic.
:beerchug:

Easy for someone to place blame on whoever is in office. But reallity check for all our libs, it is government "PERIOD." I mean come on ,did you see Hillary's $109 Billion income tax returns. They are all in bed with the oil companies and financial institutions. Where do you think all their money comes from? We can only get prices back down and consumer rights back when our government quits screwing its very people that put them in office.:whip:
I couldn't agree more. :thumb:

VWhauler

The Iraq war = a bigger mess than before we ever got there that no one has a clue how to fix.

Katrina = do I really need to say anything? I am embarassed of how poorly everthing was handled. Most importantly how little value we placed on the lives of our own brothers and sisters. That wasn't the Phillipeans that we saw on TV.



First of all I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, I am simply an American. I don't vote by party or political line but rather what seems best. Unfortunately, I often wish I could vote for None of the Above.
I agree with a couple of your statements especially about Hurricane Katrina but I hope you don’t really think the Democrats are going to swoop in and save the day. Wasn’t that the line they all were toting during the last election where they took control of the House? What positive changes have taken place since then? Seriously, they all suck!

The last time i looked, we don't live in socialist country. I don't understand why people always assumed that the government has control over the economy. Do you think any president wants his legacy to be a Sh*tty economy? They are scrambling to help the economy any way they can but their influence is limited. If someone should have been regulating the situation, you should blame the banks (most of them are going bankrupt as we speak, i.e. Countrywide, Bear Stearns). I do agree with you on one point, however. We are now paying for not knowing how to say no. If you spend your money like a child grabbing at anything it wants, its gonna be a bad situation in the end.

I definitely agree with you there. Why is it when something bad happens it is always the governments fault? Why would bigger government make it better? There are already tons of government regulations on every possible subject but we still ended up in the mess we are now. The banks are regulated but greed got in the way and now we all are paying literally and figuratively. Restraint is not a popular word in our society.

I thought this thread was about the DMAX 4.5L?:confuzeld

I am more interested in discussing the truck and engine, not US politics.:saluteusa:

That would be great. Now if GM would give us something new to talk about :cool:

I thought this thread was about the DMAX 4.5L?:confuzeld

I am more interested in discussing the truck and engine, not US politics.:saluteusa:

Haha - Absolutely Right!

I didn't mean to go over the top, sorry if I offended anyone. The last 7.5 years have been rough on almost every blue collar worker. I just hope we don't go through another year like the last couple have been. Comparing the decade of the 90's vs. 2000's it's easy to see the results and who was running the show. We all did well in the 90's and that's what I want to see again for everyone. Sometimes my passion gets the best of me.

I don't think the 4.5 will get cut, even with the premium price on fuel, and the initial investment. It's very appealing to drive a capable/powerful worktruck that should be close to 20-22mpg for combined daily driving. I feel that there is a big chunk of the 2500HD class that will jump to this truck. It will tow 99% of what they need and gets 5-7 mpg better than the truck they're driving. I think the fuel price is going to make this truck a hit for the mid to upper level towing crowd. Look how many people are begging for it in a burban/hummer. It's a very disirable combination and that's what sells cars.

I don't think the 4.5 will get cut, even with the premium price on fuel, and the initial investment. It's very appealing to drive a capable/powerful worktruck that should be close to 20-22mpg for combined daily driving. I feel that there is a big chunk of the 2500HD class that will jump to this truck. It will tow 99% of what they need and gets 5-7 mpg better than the truck they're driving. I think the fuel price is going to make this truck a hit for the mid to upper level towing crowd. Look how many people are begging for it in a burban/hummer. It's a very disirable combination and that's what sells cars.

Agreed, I think they have to give the new diesel that dodge is offering a run for the money. My only question is can they meet the numbers in regards to better fuel economy. I'm already getting pretty close to the 20-22 MPG I would like to see better numbers from this 4.5L. The HP and torque appear impressive, but economy still has to be there.

Diesel: 22 mpg @ $4.00 per gallon = 18.2 cents per mile.
Gas: 16 mpg @ $3.25 per gallon = 20.3 cents per mile.

Not that much difference, but you can still go farther on a bucks worth of diesel than you can with a bucks worth of gas in a gasser.

Regards,
Richard

Agreed, I think they have to give the new diesel that dodge is offering a run for the money. My only question is can they meet the numbers in regards to better fuel economy. I'm already getting pretty close to the 20-22 MPG I would like to see better numbers from this 4.5L. The HP and torque appear impressive, but economy still has to be there.[/quote]

I'm saying your combined tank average will be 20-22mpg, not what your highest all highway average is. I don't own a dmax but I know several people who do. When you're driving it like a car I've never heard of anyone getting more than 15-16mpg in city driving.

If you take the family on a trip with it, you can get 28mpg on all hwy miles with the new 4.5. (which is the economy conditions you're quoting I think) If you're averaging 20-22mpg between fill ups under all driving conditions, and speeds that incredible, I've never heard of that before.

I used to look at peak economies, but the most important one is lifetime economy. All the fuel put in vs. all of the miles driven, no matter what the condidtions. My gasser can get 17.5mpg but lifetime it's about 11-12mpg. That's where this truck will shine, under the same conditions I will be almost double the economy, which will justify the fuel and initial purchase premiums.

Diesel: 22 mpg @ $4.00 per gallon = 18.2 cents per mile.
Gas: 16 mpg @ $3.25 per gallon = 20.3 cents per mile.

Not that much difference, but you can still go farther on a bucks worth of diesel than you can with a bucks worth of gas in a gasser.

Regards,
Richard
That is about what I figured between my '99 sub w/350 verses my '05 dmax. Except I figured mine around town @ 13 (sub) and 16 (dmax). Either way it wasn't worth parking my truck.

That would be great. Now if GM would give us something new to talk about :cool:
X2. It'll probably be a while.

Has anyone mentioned a price for this truck yet or how much of a bump it would be for this engine option? It fits right in with the price gig with some people. Pay a little more for the car save a lot more on fuel but if they have to spend a ton more it again will make it not worth it.

Diesel: 22 mpg @ $4.00 per gallon = 18.2 cents per mile.
Gas: 16 mpg @ $3.25 per gallon = 20.3 cents per mile.

Not that much difference, but you can still go farther on a bucks worth of diesel than you can with a bucks worth of gas in a gasser.

Regards,
Richard
IMO anyone contemplating buying a diesel truck, should look at other benefits besides fuel cost savings, because there's not much savings there. If you tow heavy loads for a living, drive very high mileage annually and will keep the truck for a long time, a diesel MAY be a good investment.

One needs to look at a lot more than just fuel economy to determine if it will be a good deal or not.

First of all, you need to look at COMBINED fuel economy. I don't know of any Duramax truck that gets 22 mpg combined Highway and City driving.

But even if that were the case, which has NOT been for me, (I have NEVER seen 20 mpg on my diesel truck at any fill-up, but I have seen 20 to 23+ on my TrailBlazer and and my wife's Highlander many times), when you add 20% higher maintenance cost, it's only going to take you 338,817 miles to recover the additional $7,000 for the diesel package. And don't tell me that you will recover it at resale time, because that is only speculation. Used diesel are NOT selling around here right now.

Oh, and diesel fuel is selling for $4.159 around here, so it will take at least 500,215 miles to break even, assuming that the price difference will stay the same, which it has not. So, if you drive 15,000 miles per year, it will only take 33 years and 4 months to break even. One hell of a deal. :rolleyes:

If I were to take that $7,000 for the diesel package and put it in a savings account earning a mere 3% compunded annually for those same 33 years, I would be ahead by almost $14,000; at 5% I would be ahead by more than $35,000.

And you better hope that nothing major breaks after the truck is out of warranty, 'cause everything is way more expensive to fix on a diesel.

I have been involved with diesels for more than 30 years, both on the engineering side and as an owner. I own a diesel truck now and will continue to own one for the foreseeable future, but it's NOT in order for me to save money from fuel cost alone, because this truck costs me a lot more in fuel and maintenance than any other truck I've owned.

IMO anyone who buys a diesel ONLY as a way to save money from the fuel economy alone, is fooling himself, 'cause it won't happen. ;)

Cheers. :)

IMO anyone contemplating buying a diesel truck, should look at other benefits besides fuel cost savings, because there's not much savings there. If you tow heavy loads for a living, drive very high mileage annually and will keep the truck for a long time, a diesel MAY be a good investment.

One needs to look at a lot more than just fuel economy to determine if it will be a good deal or not.

First of all, you need to look at COMBINED fuel economy. I don't know of any Duramax truck that gets 22 mpg combined Highway and City driving.

But even if that were the case, which has NOT been for me, (I have NEVER seen 20 mpg on my diesel truck at any fill-up, but I have seen 20 to 23+ on my TrailBlazer and and my wife's Highlander many times), when you add 20% higher maintenance cost, it's only going to take you 338,817 miles to recover the additional $7,000 for the diesel package. And don't tell me that you will recover it at resale time, because that is only speculation. Used diesel are NOT selling around here right now.

Oh, and diesel fuel is selling for $4.159 around here, so it will take at least 500,215 miles to break even, assuming that the price difference will stay the same, which it has not. So, if you drive 15,000 miles per year, it will only take 33 years and 4 months to break even. One hell of a deal. :rolleyes:

If I were to take that $7,000 for the diesel package and put it in a savings account earning a mere 3% compunded annually for those same 33 years, I would be ahead by almost $14,000; at 5% I would be ahead by more than $35,000.

And you better hope that nothing major breaks after the truck is out of warranty, 'cause everything is way more expensive to fix on a diesel.

I have been involved with diesels for more than 30 years, both on the engineering side and as an owner. I own a diesel truck now and will continue to own one for the foreseeable future, but it's NOT in order for me to save money from fuel cost alone, because this truck costs me a lot more in fuel and maintenance than any other truck I've owned.

IMO anyone who buys a diesel ONLY as a way to save money from the fuel economy alone, is fooling himself, 'cause it won't happen. ;)

Cheers. :)

Man I couldn't of said it better myself. I only get at best with no trailer or load 15 MPG out of my dually and that is driving it like a grandpa. I drive sensible and very easy and have never seen better then 17 MPG out of my dually. The only time I ever seen 17 was straight out highway driving mostly flat and was on the highway for about 600 miles. The only reason I own a Diesel is because I pull heavy weight 80% of the time. Other than that I would rather have a gas. I know allot of big excavating company's around my area are switching to gas trucks for saving money and less down time since the reliability of a Diesel is slowing getting worse and worse where as a gas is getting better and better.

The 22 mpg posted earlier was an estimate for the new 4.5 Duramax. It wasn't meant to infer that we get that mileage with the current 6.6 Duramax.

Are these figures comparing the Duramax mileage to a comparably powered gas engine or a 6.0? The 6.0 doesn't have near the power of the D-Max so it isn't really fair to compare the two economically.
On the other hand, a 4.5 diesel in a chassis that weighs that similar to its gas brethren should get considerably better fuel economy. The best mileage I have ever been able to attain in my gas engine 1500 has been 18.xx. I know that some have achieved better results but I am simply trying to provide an example. A 4.5 equipped 1500 should be able to deliver 30% better fuel economy. If that engine is ever going to make it to the masses it can’t carry the premium price of the 6.6/Allison. I could certainly get used to the idea of a truck/SUV that can regularly get 20+ mpg.

The COMBINED economy of an engine is what I'm talking about. This will not be a good vehicle for the heavy tower. You will not make your money back in fuel savings in under 15-20 years of driving. However you will have a vehicle that will bang out 20-22mpg every tank full and have the guts to hook up to 12,000# and walk all over with it. This is how I view the truck and I think that contractors towing skids and other moderately heavy things will really like this truck. They'll depreciate the truck out, use the heck out of it and have the best of both worlds.

It's combined economy is very comparable to a Hybred but it has twice the towing capacity. And a hwy economy of 28mpg is flat out sick. The biggest nod I'd give to this truck is the crazy potential for power (with a little efilive tuning) and the ability to get some great gas milage when you want to. Having your cake and eating it too.

I talked to a friend of mine who works for a Dealership here in town yesterday when i was buying my LBZ and he said that they are expecting these truck in at the end of august.

I talked to a friend of mine who works for a Dealership here in town yesterday when i was buying my LBZ and he said that they are expecting these truck in at the end of august.

The 4.5L trucks? I thought those weren't going to be available until 2010.

The 4.5L trucks? I thought those weren't going to be available until 2010.

I heard late 2008 as 09's.

The COMBINED economy of an engine is what I'm talking about. This will not be a good vehicle for the heavy tower. You will not make your money back in fuel savings in under 15-20 years of driving. However you will have a vehicle that will bang out 20-22mpg every tank full and have the guts to hook up to 12,000# and walk all over with it. This is how I view the truck and I think that contractors towing skids and other moderately heavy things will really like this truck. They'll depreciate the truck out, use the heck out of it and have the best of both worlds.

It's combined economy is very comparable to a Hybred but it has twice the towing capacity. And a hwy economy of 28mpg is flat out sick. The biggest nod I'd give to this truck is the crazy potential for power (with a little efilive tuning) and the ability to get some great gas milage when you want to. Having your cake and eating it too.

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself here? (See highlighted above) A 12,000 lbs trailer is fairly heavy in my book. :rolleyes:

Those 1/2 ton trucks will still be "half ton". They will not be designed for towing 12,000 trailers loaded with skid steers, etc. That's what the 3/4 ton and 1-ton trucks are designed for. So anyone towing that kind of loads with a 1/2 ton truck on a regular basis will be asking for trouble. Doesn't matter if it has a diesel or a gas engine in it.

We'll have to see when they come out what kind of fuel economy they're going to get in real life and how much it will cost for the diesel option. We'll also have to see what the price of gasoline vs diesel fuel will be at that time, as well as how much it will cost for the Urea fluid that will be required to meet the new EPA emissions requirements. With all the added complexity for emission controls, maintenance cost for the new diesel will also be something to keep an eye on. I'm not expecting the cost of ownership to be dropping with those new 4.5L diesels.

I'm Also not holding my breath for a 28 mpg Suburban any time soon. Even 20-22 mpg combined mileage every day will be a pipe dream for a vehicle that size. ;)

I've been around these things too damned long not to see that they always inflate the fuel economy numbers from what real life driving will yield. I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see. :)

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself here? (See highlighted above) A 12,000 lbs trailer is fairly heavy in my book. :rolleyes:

Those 1/2 ton trucks will still be "half ton". They will not be designed for towing 12,000 trailers loaded with skid steers, etc. That's what the 3/4 ton and 1-ton trucks are designed for. So anyone towing that kind of loads with a 1/2 ton truck on a regular basis will be asking for trouble. Doesn't matter if it has a diesel or a gas engine in it.

We'll have to see when they come out what kind of fuel economy they're going to get in real life and how much it will cost for the diesel option. We'll also have to see what the price of gasoline vs diesel fuel will be at that time, as well as how much it will cost for the Urea fluid that will be required to meet the new EPA emissions requirements. With all the added complexity for emission controls, maintenance cost for the new diesel will also be something to keep an eye on. I'm not expecting the cost of ownership to be dropping with those new 4.5L diesels.

I'm Also not holding my breath for a 28 mpg Suburban any time soon. Even 20-22 mpg combined mileage every day will be a pipe dream for a vehicle that size. ;)

I've been around these things too damned long not to see that they always inflate the fuel economy numbers from what real life driving will yield. I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see. :)

You'll like this then. I was at a dealership the other day checking out the new half tons. I was talking to the salesman about fuel economy and i asked him what people are really getting. He said most people were getting more than the EPA estimate!:eek: He claimed the new denali with the 6.0 was getting 28 mpg. I was like WTF! there is no way a vehicle that large and brick like is getting 28 mpg highway with a big V8 and no ability to shut off cylinders. if they wer capable of that GM woudl be bragging about it every chance they got. I shrugged it off and we kept looking. As we were walking around I overheard another salesman trying to sell a canyon. He was claiming 29mpg highway when the sticker said 22... What are they teaching these guys?

........... "I was talking to the salesman about fuel economy and i asked him what people are really getting. He said most people were getting more than the EPA estimate! He claimed the new Denali with the 6.0 was getting 28 mpg." ...........

Must be related to the RV salesman that tells folks that a 1/2 ton diesel will pull the 38' fifth wheel that he's trying to sell. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Richard

38' with no brake controler either right? hahaha

I'm very interested in seeing how much the option will cost. For a 1/2 ton with the options i want is aready pretty pricy. If you throw a $5-7K jump for an engine up grade it almost makes it not worth it specially if diesel is up to $5.00 by the end of summer.

Yeah, I've even heard of people getting 95+ and even 100 mpg on a VW Jetta. But when you ask for details, you find out that they were "drafting" semi's 2 feet from their rear bumper at 70 mph and coasting in neutral or shutting down the engine while going downhill, etc. Not exactly the safest modes of driving. :rolleyes:

My overall average mileage in my DMax at 157,000 miles is 17.5 mpg. I've gotten 20 to 21 mpg on empty interstate runs, as low as 12.5 mpg towing and typically run about 16.5 to 18.5 mpg empty stop and go.

hey shafer my d-max is in dealer right now for 8 days. they gave me a silverado with a gas engine. with the price difference in fuel my d-max still is cheaper to drive fuel wise than a gasser that i was supplied with. so park the tahoe

I heard late 2008 as 09's.

That would be nice. Maybe I will wait to the end of the year to buy a new truck and see if they really do become available. I would like to be able to tow up to 10,000 pounds with the fuel economy of a 1/2 ton.

What are they teaching these guys?


They are teaching them that fuel economy sells right now.
If their lips are moving you know they are lying. The only thing that changes is what they are lying about. ;)

IMO anyone who buys a diesel ONLY as a way to save money from the fuel economy alone, is fooling himself, 'cause it won't happen. ;)

Cheers. :)

i would disagree with that statement

i use 27 gallons diesel a week in 500 miles at 3.99 g
27x3.99=107.73$ a week in diesel
my old 5.3 gasser
would use 34 gallons a week in 500 mile at 3.39 g
34x3.39=115.26$ a week if i still had that truck
so even with diesel at 60 cent more a gallon im saveings 7.53$ a week

now mind you when i bought in 03 diesel was 1.15 and gas was 1.95 so with the previous numbers

27x1.15=31.05$ a week for diesel
34x1.95=66.30$ a week in gas
then i was saveing 35.25$ a week in useing diesel

there was a saveings there and it is very real granted with todays prices and better economy otta the gassers it reduced but its there none the less
no wonder the diesel prices are higher the oil companys relized people were saveing a few bucks and they dont want that so they uped the prices because they could

i would disagree with that statement

i use 27 gallons diesel a week in 500 miles at 3.99 g
27x3.99=107.73$ a week in diesel
my old 5.3 gasser
would use 34 gallons a week in 500 mile at 3.39 g
34x3.39=115.26$ a week if i still had that truck
so even with diesel at 60 cent more a gallon im saveings 7.53$ a week

now mind you when i bought in 03 diesel was 1.15 and gas was 1.95 so with the previous numbers

27x1.15=31.05$ a week for diesel
34x1.95=66.30$ a week in gas
then i was saveing 35.25$ a week in useing diesel

there was a saveings there and it is very real granted with todays prices and better economy otta the gassers it reduced but its there none the less
no wonder the diesel prices are higher the oil companys relized people were saveing a few bucks and they dont want that so they uped the prices because they could

First of all, my point was made at today's prices for fuel and for the diesel package. Back when diesel fuel was a lot cheaper than gasoline, it was much easier to justify the diesel on fuel savings alone. But that is no longer the case.

Let's see, using your own numbers, you say that you save $7.53/week. OK let's see how that works out.

$7,000 for the diesel option divided by $7.53 = 929.61 weeks just to recoup the price for the diesel package. That works out to 17 years and 10.5 months or 464,805 miles at 500 miles per week. And you haven't even added the higher maintenance cost for the diesel.

If I were to take that $7,000 and put it in a savings account earning a mere 3% compounded annually, at the end of those 17 years and 10.5 months, I would still have the $7,000 plus I would have earned an additional $4,873.08 in interest for a total of 11,873.08. If I can get 5% on my investment, the final number would be $16,743.91 --I can buy an awful lot of gasoline for that much money. ;)

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but that still does not save me any money from fuel savings alone in my book, but I'm sure you've been able to justify the diesel package for other reasons as well, so it works out for you. :)

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself here? (See highlighted above) A 12,000 lbs trailer is fairly heavy in my book. :rolleyes:

Those 1/2 ton trucks will still be "half ton". They will not be designed for towing 12,000 trailers loaded with skid steers, etc. That's what the 3/4 ton and 1-ton trucks are designed for. So anyone towing that kind of loads with a 1/2 ton truck on a regular basis will be asking for trouble. Doesn't matter if it has a diesel or a gas engine in it.

We'll have to see when they come out what kind of fuel economy they're going to get in real life and how much it will cost for the diesel option. We'll also have to see what the price of gasoline vs diesel fuel will be at that time, as well as how much it will cost for the Urea fluid that will be required to meet the new EPA emissions requirements. With all the added complexity for emission controls, maintenance cost for the new diesel will also be something to keep an eye on. I'm not expecting the cost of ownership to be dropping with those new 4.5L diesels.

I'm Also not holding my breath for a 28 mpg Suburban any time soon. Even 20-22 mpg combined mileage every day will be a pipe dream for a vehicle that size. ;)

I've been around these things too damned long not to see that they always inflate the fuel economy numbers from what real life driving will yield. I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see. :)


I own a 1500HD CCSB with quadrasteer. I've towed 11,500# with it and had no troubles. I don't live in the open prairie or the mountains, but the terrain is quite hilly. It's not something I'd like to do everyday, but my truck has to have this ability several times a year. To you this may be a contradiction, to me it's not. That's what I expect out of my truck. Since it is so infrequent I don't consider it heavy towing.

Since you been around diesel so long you must be aware of the 6.2. I'd also assume you'd be aware that it was able to get a consistent 20+ mpg under respectable driving conditions. Last fall I almost bought a k-5 blazer from a gentleman that he owned since new. (I regret not buying it now) With the OD tranny and 3.42's he swore up and down he got 24-26 mpg at 60-65mph. I find it hard to believe that 20 years of technology in the motor and tranny, and a smaller displacement won't be just a little better than the old 6.2.

We can debate this all we want, in the end we won't know till the truck gets used.

Since you been around diesel so long you must be aware of the 6.2. I'd also assume you'd be aware that it was able to get a consistent 20+ mpg under respectable driving conditions. Last fall I almost bought a k-5 blazer from a gentleman that he owned since new. (I regret not buying it now) With the OD tranny and 3.42's he swore up and down he got 24-26 mpg at 60-65mph. I find it hard to believe that 20 years of technology in the motor and tranny, and a smaller displacement won't be just a little better than the old 6.2.

We can debate this all we want, in the end we won't know till the truck gets used.

Yeap, and the 6.2 was not saddled with all the emission crap that is required by the EPA for today's diesels which will hurt fuel economy and increase the operating cost.

My 1979 Olds Delta 88 diesel got me a consistent 30 to 35 mpg and with its 26 gallon fuel tank, I could easily go 700 to 750 mile on one tank of fuel on the highway without breaking a sweat. I would be dreaming if I though I could get anywhere close to that with my truck. But I didn't get it for fuel economy, I got it for towing.

But as I stated earlier, I sure hope I am wrong, because I have a huge vested interest in GM's ability to survive and make money. :D

I had a 95 chevy 1500 that I just got rid of for the duramax. Im saving a good amount by driving a diesel.

That would be nice. Maybe I will wait to the end of the year to buy a new truck and see if they really do become available. I would like to be able to tow up to 10,000 pounds with the fuel economy of a 1/2 ton.

The new 1500s are rated 10,500. But only with the 6.0... However I suspect that unloaded the fuel mileage is only 1-2 mpg different than the 5.3.

My 1979 Olds Delta 88 diesel got me a consistent 30 to 35 mpg and with its 26 gallon fuel tank, I could easily go 700 to 750 mile on one tank of fuel on the highway without breaking a sweat. I would be dreaming if I though I could get anywhere close to that with my truck. But I didn't get it for fuel economy, I got it for towing.

But as I stated earlier, I sure hope I am wrong, because I have a huge vested interest in GM's ability to survive and make money. :D

That's awesome! How well did it tow?

I'm a friggin tree hugger. I'm so hopefull for the higher economy to reduce consuption, not for a financial savings.

That's awesome! How well did it tow?

I'm a friggin tree hugger. I'm so hopefull for the higher economy to reduce consuption, not for a financial savings.

My dad had a couple of the old 5.7L diesels. Got killer mileage, but best I remember wouldn't pull your hat off your head. A small bass boat that I used to pull with a 4cyl. Ford Ranger gave the diesel Olds fits.

I had an '80 Cadillac with the 350 diesel, good mileage but tow the rating was only 1,000# and it was the same rating for the Chevy trucks that had that engine. It was a naturally aspirated converted gas engine and was slow in the mountains. If you trounced on it, black sooty smoke would belch from the tail pipe.

Regards,
Richard

That's awesome! How well did it tow?

I'm a friggin tree hugger. I'm so hopefull for the higher economy to reduce consuption, not for a financial savings.

actually, it towed my 3-place snowmobile trailer with 3-sleds on it without much of a sweat. :)

I had an '80 Cadillac with the 350 diesel, good mileage but tow the rating was only 1,000# and it was the same rating for the Chevy trucks that had that engine. It was a naturally aspirated converted gas engine and was slow in the mountains. If you trounced on it, black sooty smoke would belch from the tail pipe.

Regards,
Richard

The '77 thru '79 5.7L diesel had the original "pencil" type injectors and they produced 40% more horsepower and better fuel economy than the 1980's which went to "poppet" nozzles for emission control reasons.

The 1980's couldn't pull a wet string out of a monkey's butt. :(

LOL!!

How much did the economy drop pulling the 3 place sled trailer. Sorry for all the questions, I love details/specs.

I had an '80 Cadillac with the 350 diesel, good mileage but tow the rating was only 1,000# and it was the same rating for the Chevy trucks that had that engine. It was a naturally aspirated converted gas engine and was slow in the mountains. If you trounced on it, black sooty smoke would belch from the tail pipe.

Regards,
Richard

They aren't a gas conversion. Common misconception. They have the same displacement but its a completely different motor.

LOL!!

How much did the economy drop pulling the 3 place sled trailer. Sorry for all the questions, I love details/specs.

I don't remember exact numbers, but it was still better than pulling it with the gas powered Vista Cruiser.

The new 1500s are rated 10,500. But only with the 6.0... However I suspect that unloaded the fuel mileage is only 1-2 mpg different than the 5.3.

I was actually referring to the upcoming 4.5L Duramax not a 6.0 or 5.3. A 1500 with a diesel is going to get considerably better fuel economy than a 2500 diesel or a 1500 gas for that matter.

They aren't a gas conversion. Common misconception. They have the same displacement but its a completely different motor.

It pretty much is a conversion. Its not a chevy block its a olds block. Many parts interchange from the gas version to the diesel... In old school race cars people would use Diesel rods in gas engines...

It pretty much is a conversion. Its not a chevy block its a olds block. Many parts interchange from the gas version to the diesel... In old school race cars people would use Diesel rods in gas engines...

It is NOT a converted gas engine. It has a different cylinder block (4-bolt mains), different head, different, intake manifold, different crankshaft (forged steel), different camshaft (roller lifters), different cam gears and drive chain, different con rods, different bearings, different pistons, different induction system, different starter, different electrical system, different exhaust system, different head gaskets and engine seals, and obviously the injection system is also different.

The fact that basic cylinder block and crankshaft dimension might be similar was so that the major parts could be machined on similar production lines, but even the diesel engine line was completely separate from the the gas engine line.

Yes many hot-rodders built killer gas engines by using the diesel block and some times the crankshaft, con-rods and starter, because they were stronger, but that's about the extent of interchangeability. ;)

I thought the 5.7 was based on a gasoline design, but you would know better Ray - I guess it was changed-up by the mains, but obviously close because of the parts interchangability. I DO know that a lot of smack went around about the 6.2 being based on a gasoline engine, but it was a ground-up design by Detroit Diesel.

First of all, my point was made at today's prices for fuel and for the diesel package. Back when diesel fuel was a lot cheaper than gasoline, it was much easier to justify the diesel on fuel savings alone. But that is no longer the case.

Let's see, using your own numbers, you say that you save $7.53/week. OK let's see how that works out.

$7,000 for the diesel option divided by $7.53 = 929.61 weeks just to recoup the price for the diesel package. That works out to 17 years and 10.5 months or 464,805 miles at 500 miles per week. And you haven't even added the higher maintenance cost for the diesel.

If I were to take that $7,000 and put it in a savings account earning a mere 3% compounded annually, at the end of those 17 years and 10.5 months, I would still have the $7,000 plus I would have earned an additional $4,873.08 in interest for a total of 11,873.08. If I can get 5% on my investment, the final number would be $16,743.91 --I can buy an awful lot of gasoline for that much money. ;)

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but that still does not save me any money from fuel savings alone in my book, but I'm sure you've been able to justify the diesel package for other reasons as well, so it works out for you. :)


i dont recall what the diesel option was in 03 but im thinking it was more like a 5k upgrade then and you forgot about the say 2-3 years where i saved 35$ a week so your #'s are alittle off bottom line is you said there was no fuel saveing and there is all be it not like there was in the past

mantinece is kinda a moot point 3 oil changes on a gasser equal 1 on a diesel so that leaves a fuel filter as extra mantinece and if ya really wanna get down to the numbers the diesel is worth more than a comparable gasser at trade or resale time to

botom line when i bought this truck my monthlly gas bill dropped in half for the first 2 1/2 years and thats real time saveings that i felt in my pocket book not 15 years or so later and the fact thats its payed for and still saves 7.50$ a week in the pocket book is just the iceing on the cake

dont get me wrong if i was looking to buy new today a diesel would be a hard justified sale for sure because the numbers are not there like they were in years past

i dont recall what the diesel option was in 03 but im thinking it was more like a 5k upgrade then and you forgot about the say 2-3 years where i saved 35$ a week so your #'s are alittle off bottom line is you said there was no fuel saveing and there is all be it not like there was in the past

mantinece is kinda a moot point 3 oil changes on a gasser equal 1 on a diesel so that leaves a fuel filter as extra mantinece and if ya really wanna get down to the numbers the diesel is worth more than a comparable gasser at trade or resale time to

botom line when i bought this truck my monthlly gas bill dropped in half for the first 2 1/2 years and thats real time saveings that i felt in my pocket book not 15 years or so later and the fact thats its payed for and still saves 7.50$ a week in the pocket book is just the iceing on the cake

dont get me wrong if i was looking to buy new today a diesel would be a hard justified sale for sure because the numbers are not there like they were in years past

Again, I am not talking about the price of diesel fuel or the diesel package 3 years ago. Heck, when I bought my 2006 LBZ on December 2005, fuel economy alone, made it a good decision BACK THEN, but not now. I am talking about fuel prices, average fuel economy and the extra cost for the diesel package TODAY. And at least around here, used diesel trucks are not selling, so recovering the cost at resale is merely speculation right now.

MAINTENANCE: If you go by the Oil Life Computer, the oil change intervals are about the same for the two truck, but the gasser takes 5 quarts every 7,500 miles vs 10 quarts of MORE EXPENSIVE OIL for the diesel @ 7,500 miles. That makes is more costly in my book. ;)

If you are able to justify it, even with a 17+ years and 465,000 miles payback at today's prices, then by all means buy one, GM can definitely use the sales. --Do the math at today's prices for the diesel option and today's prices for fuel. I have run the numbers countless times, because my brother would love to be able to justify buying a new diesel truck, but it is NOT a good financial decision at TODAY's prices for him, if fuel economy is the only justification. He can do much better with his 2005 5.3L 1500. He doesn't need a 3/4 ton truck. ( BTW, he is averaging 14 to 16 mpg with his 5.3L 1500 Silverado vs my LBZ's total average of 17.5 mpg over the last 28 months )

GASSER: $3.399 per gal divided by 14 mpg ==> $0.2428 fuel cost per mile
DIESEL : $4.159 per gal divided by 17.5 mpg => $0.2377 fuel cost per mile

NET FUEL SAVINGS with Diesel = $0.0051 per mile.

Cost of diesel package TODAY = $7,000

Break Even Point = $7,000/$0.0051 = 1,372,549 miles. (Not in my lifetime @ 20,000 mi/yr) ;)

A few months ago, one of the diesel magazines, I think it was Diesel Power Magazine, ran a comparison test on the new LMM vs a similar 6.0L gas powered 2500HD, for something like 400+ miles, on similar trips, including towing the same trailer, etc., and they found less than 1 MPG difference between the two trucks for the total miles driven.

The diesel package CAN be justified for the right usage, but not by fuel savings alone.

I thought the 5.7 was based on a gasoline design, but you would know better Ray - I guess it was changed-up by the mains, but obviously close because of the parts interchangability. I DO know that a lot of smack went around about the 6.2 being based on a gasoline engine, but it was a ground-up design by Detroit Diesel.

Yeah, unfortunately that's a label the media loves to lay on every diesel engine that GM has built over the past 30+ years. Even the Duramax has had an up-hill battle.

Up 'till GM came out with the 5.7L diesel engine, no one was building diesel passenger cars at the high volume required by the mainstream US market after the Arab oil embargo. The 5.7L diesel engine was designed so that it could be built in fairly high volumes for the passenger car market. Up to that time, Mercedes Benz was the highest volume builder of diesel powered passenger cars sold in this country and they only sold a few thousand a year. The oil crunch during the mid 70's forced the US automakers to drastically improve fuel economy and a high volume diesel engine filled that need.

Admittedly, there are a many things that could have been done different with the 5.7L diesel, but the basic design was a good one for the intended use. Detroit Diesel learned many lessons from the 5.7 and was able to correct the majority of those problems when they came out with the 6.2L and later the 6.5L engine. Every new engine has been better than the previous design. Advancements in electronics design, along with the advent of electronic fuel injection systems and better quality control by the oil companies and diesel fuel distributors have helped immensely. But the media has been relentless in tearing down every new diesel engine that came from GM. Obviously the 6.5L has garnered a lot of merits, and is still being built by AM General for the military. The 6.6L Duramax is even better still. A lot of valuable lessons have been learned along the way. :)

You folks keep talking about the costs of a diesel rig. I had a gas Ford van that I used for towing a 26ft. RV. Got 4 to 4.5 MPG. Bought the Dmax - same RV got 16 MPG. Van empty 14MPG avg, Dmax empty 17MPG avg.

Ford van averaged 800-1000 per year in repairs. Dmax has cost less than 400 in six years.

Mtc - Ford van 6 quarts every 3000 miles, Dmax 10 quarts every 5000 miles - close to a wash in my book.

Lets see now Dmax gets four times the mileage towing and better running empty, much less mtc and all the power I need when towing.

Sound to me like the Dmax worked out better.

GASSER: $3.399 per gal divided by 14 mpg ==> $0.2428 fuel cost per mile
DIESEL : $4.159 per gal divided by 17.5 mpg => $0.2377 fuel cost per mile


looks like a fuel saveings there to me and thats really not even a comparable match with a 1/2 ton 5.3 to 3/4 ton 6.6 yet still theres shows a fuel saveings on your number's

your original statement

"IMO anyone who buys a diesel ONLY as a way to save money from the fuel economy alone, is fooling himself, 'cause it won't happen. ;)

Cheers. :) "

so what if it takes 17 years to break even that must mean you save something to at least break even rite? again i refer you to the original statement you made that i quoted

If you really think that $0.0051 savings per mile on these trucks, or in your case $7.50/week, is real savings, just look a little deeper at the cost for an oil change.

Both diesel and gasoline trucks are currently equipped with the GM Engine Oil Life System. This is a computerized system that keeps track of when you should change your oil. If you follow this system, you can generally go at least 7,500 miles between oil changes with BOTH trucks. (I have had my used oil analyzed by a very reputable lab and every time they've said that I can go much longer than 7,500 on either my old gas truck or my current Duramax. [Actually, the gas truck can typically go farther than the diesel, because their is much less soot or blow-by contamination and way less stress on the oil. :)]

Now, one must also keep in mind that diesel engine oil is generally more expensive than oil made strictly for gasoline engines. And, if you want to help your engine last as long as possible, many people recommend using synthetic oils.

Most people here will agree that Mobil synthetic oils are excellent products. So let's see how much it would cost for an oil and filter change on identical 2500HD trucks using Mobil Oil.


Mobil Synthetic 5W30 (Gasoline) . . . . . $ 6.50/qt
Mobil Synthetic 4W40 (Turbo Dsl Trk). . . $ 7.50/qt
Oil Filter (Gas). . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.25 each
Oil Filter (Diesel) . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.75 each
Air Cleaner Element (Gas) . . . . . . . . $25.00 each
Air Cleaner Element (Diesel). . . . . . . $54.50 each
Fuel Filter (Gas) . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8.00 each (seldom replaced)
Fuel Filter (Diesel). . . . . . . . . . . $30.00 each (replace 10K to 15K)

ENGINE: . . . Duramax . . 6.0L Gas
Miles : . . . 7,500 . . . 7,500
QUARTS: . . . 10.0 qt . . 6.0 qt

OIL Cost:. . $75.00 . . . $39.00
Oil Filt:. . $ 5.75 . . . $ 4.25
TransFilt: . $ 7.93 . . . $ 0.00
SubTotal:. . $88.68 . . . $43.25
Sales Tax: . $ 5.32 . . . $ 2.60
TotalCost: . $94.00 . . . $45.85
Cost/Mile: . $0.01253 . . $0.00611 per Oil Change


Right there, Oil & filter changes alone at 500 miles/wk will average $3.21 per week MORE on the diesel, so your net savings is now reduced to $4.29 --That means that based on those numbers alone, it will take 1,621.7 weeks (or 31 years and 2.3 months) to save the $7,000 for the diesel option. At 500 miles per week it will take 815,851 miles to break even and you haven't yet accounted for the fact that the diesel fuel filters cost at least 3 to 4 times as much as the gasser, which may never need to be replaced. The Air Filter for the diesel will cost 2x as much. And diesel parts and labor are way more expensive than for a gasoline engine. I doubt you'll be able to go 815,851 miles without any repairs whatsoever.

as I said earlier, I can put that $7,000 in a savings account and come out way ahead in the end. If you add maintenance into the equation, now the break-even point stretches out to 31 years and 2.3 months.

That same $7,000 in a savings account earning a mere 3% compounded annually will grow to $17,597 in 31 years & 2.3 months. And if I invest if at 5% APR, it will grow even more to $32,056 -- That's a pretty good size down payment towards a new truck. So where is the savings from the diesel?

As I said before, if you tow heavy loads, long distance for a living, then by all means, the diesel package can be more easily justified, but if it's merely a daily driver than can be replaced with a gasser or even a 1500 truck, those savings are merely an illusion. :rolleyes:

Now if you want to drive a diesel, because you are a diesel enthusiast and you enjoy the huge amounts of torque and horsepower that you can get from a diesel, then just admit to that. There is nothing wrong with being a diesel enthusiast as long one realizes the costs involved. This is no different than having a nice fishing boat, or a classic hotrod, or stock car racing or rock crawling, etc.

I'm headed for Yuma in about a month. Need a truck, can't make do with a Jetta or other small figures. Used to have a 8.1 gasser. At todays fuel prices the DMax will get me across the country about $110.00 less in fuel costs. Still glad I went to diesel.

This has probably been mentioned before but what is the expected MPG on the 4.5 or has it not even been officially posted yet?

I heard around 22 highway.

If you really think that $0.0051 savings per mile on these trucks, or in your case $7.50/week, is real savings, just look a little deeper at the cost for an oil change.

Both diesel and gasoline trucks are currently equipped with the GM Engine Oil Life System. This is a computerized system that keeps track of when you should change your oil. If you follow this system, you can generally go at least 7,500 miles between oil changes with BOTH trucks. (I have had my used oil analyzed by a very reputable lab and every time they've said that I can go much longer than 7,500 on either my old gas truck or my current Duramax. [Actually, the gas truck can typically go farther than the diesel, because their is much less soot or blow-by contamination and way less stress on the oil. :)]

Now, one must also keep in mind that diesel engine oil is generally more expensive than oil made strictly for gasoline engines. And, if you want to help your engine last as long as possible, many people recommend using synthetic oils.

Most people here will agree that Mobil synthetic oils are excellent products. So let's see how much it would cost for an oil and filter change on identical 2500HD trucks using Mobil Oil.


Mobil Synthetic 5W30 (Gasoline) . . . . . $ 6.50/qt
Mobil Synthetic 4W40 (Turbo Dsl Trk). . . $ 7.50/qt
Oil Filter (Gas). . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.25 each
Oil Filter (Diesel) . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.75 each
Air Cleaner Element (Gas) . . . . . . . . $25.00 each
Air Cleaner Element (Diesel). . . . . . . $54.50 each
Fuel Filter (Gas) . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8.00 each (seldom replaced)
Fuel Filter (Diesel). . . . . . . . . . . $30.00 each (replace 10K to 15K)

ENGINE: . . . Duramax . . 6.0L Gas
Miles : . . . 7,500 . . . 7,500
QUARTS: . . . 10.0 qt . . 6.0 qt

OIL Cost:. . $75.00 . . . $39.00
Oil Filt:. . $ 5.75 . . . $ 4.25
TransFilt: . $ 7.93 . . . $ 0.00
SubTotal:. . $88.68 . . . $43.25
Sales Tax: . $ 5.32 . . . $ 2.60
TotalCost: . $94.00 . . . $45.85
Cost/Mile: . $0.01253 . . $0.00611 per Oil Change


Right there, Oil & filter changes alone at 500 miles/wk will average $3.21 per week MORE on the diesel, so your net savings is now reduced to $4.29 --That means that based on those numbers alone, it will take 1,621.7 weeks (or 31 years and 2.3 months) to save the $7,000 for the diesel option. At 500 miles per week it will take 815,851 miles to break even and you haven't yet accounted for the fact that the diesel fuel filters cost at least 3 to 4 times as much as the gasser, which may never need to be replaced. The Air Filter for the diesel will cost 2x as much. And diesel parts and labor are way more expensive than for a gasoline engine. I doubt you'll be able to go 815,851 miles without any repairs whatsoever.

as I said earlier, I can put that $7,000 in a savings account and come out way ahead in the end. If you add maintenance into the equation, now the break-even point stretches out to 31 years and 2.3 months.

That same $7,000 in a savings account earning a mere 3% compounded annually will grow to $17,597 in 31 years & 2.3 months. And if I invest if at 5% APR, it will grow even more to $32,056 -- That's a pretty good size down payment towards a new truck. So where is the savings from the diesel?

As I said before, if you tow heavy loads, long distance for a living, then by all means, the diesel package can be more easily justified, but if it's merely a daily driver than can be replaced with a gasser or even a 1500 truck, those savings are merely an illusion. :rolleyes:

Now if you want to drive a diesel, because you are a diesel enthusiast and you enjoy the huge amounts of torque and horsepower that you can get from a diesel, then just admit to that. There is nothing wrong with being a diesel enthusiast as long one realizes the costs involved. This is no different than having a nice fishing boat, or a classic hotrod, or stock car racing or rock crawling, etc.

All I can say to that is... wow.
I had no idea there was that much to even add up!

Maint schedules on a gasser in heavy use vs. a diesel in heavey use would be more applicable. And the tranny..My 6.0 gasser was alot more to maintain...exaggerated filter changes every~25k filter plus quarts added give or take 100 bones, the ally does not require a internal filter replacement until overhaul, the ext filters are changed more often by others due to the cheap and easy job it is, but not required by maint schedule as stated. not to mention resale and longevity. I do tow quite a bit~12k 5er, but when im not I feel that the above mentioned were enough to ditch my reliable 6.0 for a diesel with an ally.

Man! You Can't Compare A Work Truck (hd) With A Gas Grocery Getter, If That Truck Would Be Erning A Pay Check (working) Those Number Will Be Turned Around,for Excemple My Truck Tows For A Living And I Can Not Use A Light Pick Up Truck, My Truck Is Paying For It's Self, So The Maintainance Don't Mean Nothing.

Wow this thread is all over the place; world events, politics, gassers vs diesel maintenance, etc.
The cost of operating a heavy diesel should be more than a diesel in a 1500 bottom line. Since this thread was about no one buying a 1500 diesel due to fuel prices etc the speculation should be comparing a 5.3L to the upcoming 4.5L. From my personal experience comparing fuel and maintenace costs of 1500's vs 2500/3500's is apples to oranges. They are different trucks for different uses. I would think that a 4.5L diesel in a half ton would get considerably better fuel economy than a comparable gas engine. That alone may not make up the difference in engine cost of the diesel but people buy trucks for different reasons, especially 1500 versions. I would venture to say the primary reason is not for their outstanding fuel economy.

If your want to compare the economics of owning a new truck you will never win, becuase buying used will always save you money almost regardless of what you get. I'm sure if you bought a 130k+ mile truck for commuting only you could make the numbers work and come out ahead of buying a brand new Honda Civic!

That being said, I'm buying a new diesel truck at the end of this year becuase I:
a) want one
b) used truck prices are higher then I think they should be considering most of the time you have no idea how the truck was treated. I'm not buying a truck with unknown history with 80k miles and still paying $25k for it, when I can get a new one for ~$40k. That $15k is small compared to if you get a problematic used truck.
c) diesels tow through the mountains with ease and on long distance trips you don't get as tired as driving a gasser that has to down shift and rev on slight inclines

If your want to compare the economics of owning a new truck you will never win, becuase buying used will always save you money almost regardless of what you get. I'm sure if you bought a 130k+ mile truck for commuting only you could make the numbers work and come out ahead of buying a brand new Honda Civic!

That being said, I'm buying a new diesel truck at the end of this year becuase I:
a) want one
b) used truck prices are higher then I think they should be considering most of the time you have no idea how the truck was treated. I'm not buying a truck with unknown history with 80k miles and still paying $25k for it, when I can get a new one for ~$40k. That $15k is small compared to if you get a problematic used truck.
c) diesels tow through the mountains with ease and on long distance trips you don't get as tired as driving a gasser that has to down shift and rev on slight inclines

80k for 25? everything should be much lower now with diesel being so expensive. I know because I'm currently trying to sell my truck and as soon as I put mine up for sale about 10-15 others did as well. I swear one guy is trying to start a price war. He keeps lowering his price to make him the lowest.

well... congrats on the new truck in the future. As for me i'll most likely be driving a gasser till I get my degree.

Prices haven't come down much here yet. I keep waiting for them to drop because of the housing market issues and general shakiness of the economy but so far they are holding strong. Unfortunately.

80k for 25? everything should be much lower now with diesel being so expensive.

Yep, $25k for a 2500HD crew cab 4x4 diesel's non-contractor trucks with something like an LT2 package and about 80k miles.


well... congrats on the new truck in the future. As for me i'll most likely be driving a gasser till I get my degree.

I'm graduating in August, that's how I can afford it.

Yep, $25k for a 2500HD crew cab 4x4 diesel's non-contractor trucks with something like an LT2 package and about 80k miles.



I'm graduating in August, that's how I can afford it.

What year?

there were a some pretty good deals around here just a little while ago. One was an 02 crew cab with 32k miles, power seats and all that, 4x4 for 21,500. Even the dealers are marking them down. I saw an 03 crew cab short bed with leather and a lift with 58k on it for 23,XXX.

I did not read all 15 pages of this post but I believe $5 diesel may be a reality albeit short lived. Like housing and tech stocks, bubbles are made to burst.

its part of life....just another bill we all have to pay if we wanna drive a diesel

I really hope it doesn't hit $5. that is where i will cut it off on my grand plan of purchasing a diesel. Although i have to say i hate the argument that most people bring up about how people in Europe are paying a ton more. I don't live in Europe and it's for a reason. Don't tell me what they are paying for stuff cause it doesn't matter to me.

Don't know about where you guys live but the bottom has fallen out of the resale market around here. Diesels used to be the cats meoow here in hick country but not anymore. They are for sale everywhere you look and not moving. My brother in law who is a sales manager at a toyota dealership said they are no longer taking "older" diesels as trades because they cannot sell them. I don't know what "older" means, I was too depressed to ask.....also said that the diesel tundras were now a big question mark because of fuel prices. Toyota supposedly wants to introduce them at an "opportune" time which I don't think this is.

Hopefully GM can convert this factory into making small diesels 3.0lit and smaller to go in hybrid cars because if things stay the way they are the truck market diesel or gas in america is going to take a serious turn for the worse.

I really hope it doesn't hit $5. that is where i will cut it off on my grand plan of purchasing a diesel. Although i have to say i hate the argument that most people bring up about how people in Europe are paying a ton more. I don't live in Europe and it's for a reason. Don't tell me what they are paying for stuff cause it doesn't matter to me.

Yah people in europe are also not driving 3/4 ton diesels everwhere........

I did not read all 15 pages of this post but I believe $5 diesel may be a reality albeit short lived. Like housing and tech stocks, bubbles are made to burst.

It $5 a gallon here on long island at the rip off stations...

It $5 a gallon here on long island at the rip off stations...

and it isn't even summer yet...Memorial Day is going to be crazy

I found a good deal on a brand new 08' GMC CC 2500, basically equipped identical to mine. Thought about buying it b/c I can't wait to get the new body style and interior until I found out what I could actually get for mine. The Kelly Blue book trade in for mine is 32K, the dealer said he'd give me 23K for it! The way the used market is around here, I seriously doubt I could sell it outright myself and get much more for it. One main reason I bought a diesel is b/c the resale value is higher on a diesel than gas - or atleast that's the way it used to be. Seems like that has done a 180 degree turn due to fuel prices. The sticker on mine was 52K brand new, I paid 43k for it and 2 years and 50,000 miles into it it's depreciated 20K mainly b/c of fuel prices skyrocketing.

How much does having a kid cost.....

How much does having a kid cost.....

My Duramax is my kid, and its somewhat expensive. But if I drive it right, drive smart, I can go two weeks on 1 tank! :D I love my truck too much and I'd get a 3rd job if it came down to it.

Don't know about where you guys live but the bottom has fallen out of the resale market around here. Diesels used to be the cats meoow here in hick country but not anymore. They are for sale everywhere you look and not moving. My brother in law who is a sales manager at a toyota dealership said they are no longer taking "older" diesels as trades because they cannot sell them. I don't know what "older" means, I was too depressed to ask.....also said that the diesel tundras were now a big question mark because of fuel prices. Toyota supposedly wants to introduce them at an "opportune" time which I don't think this is.

Hopefully GM can convert this factory into making small diesels 3.0lit and smaller to go in hybrid cars because if things stay the way they are the truck market diesel or gas in america is going to take a serious turn for the worse.

Same here, I used to live in NE and WOW.....a truck with a diesel in it was RIDICULOUS. Now in the Twin Cities I can get an old cummins REALLY CHEAP!!!

Same here, I used to live in NE and WOW.....a truck with a diesel in it was RIDICULOUS. Now in the Twin Cities I can get an old cummins REALLY CHEAP!!!


It is getting worse with all this BS about oil possibly going to $200/barrell which would likely put us around $8.00-$9.00/gallon gas. Brother in law said they are considering not accepting SUV's as trades as well as diesels because of the dead used market for these vehicles. On a side side they cannot get enough hybrid camrys, and prius.....:mad: We own a 2007 dmax and a 2007 acura mdx, I am hosed :(

I am confident this is a temporary spike in diesel price. There are many factors driving up the price that have been previously discussed. What factors are legitimate and which factors are bogus remains to be seen.

There are companies( oil?) paying pr firms to talk down growing alternate fuels by promoting food price concerns.

Devaluation of the dollar to foreign currencies influences prices alot. It is said that the Reagen economic model of spend and charge (deficit) that the government currently uses influences oil prices in a bad way. $1= 1.6 euros. i.e. Dollar falling in world value.

With uncertainty comes speculation. Short term fluctuations don't last forever.

I'm not sure that worldwide demand suddenly increases in a one year period to crisis levels.I think we would see a gradual rise in price if this was legit.

I believe that if diesels were in more widespread use in the country the total use of petroleum would diminish greatly. That would mean less profit and control for big oil companies over a long term picture.Who knows what interests are flexing their muscles to maintain the status quo.

One thing is clear in my mind. The U.S economy is driven by goods and services provided by diesel trucks. If diesel goes to $8 or $10 a gallon,like some sources predicted,then the 20 or 30 k you lose on your truck will be chicken s*it compared to the devastation caused to the economy.Think about major changes in the American way of life.

I am confident this is a temporary spike in diesel price. There are many factors driving up the price that have been previously discussed. What factors are legitimate and which factors are bogus remains to be seen.

There are companies( oil?) paying pr firms to talk down growing alternate fuels by promoting food price concerns.

Devaluation of the dollar to foreign currencies influences prices alot. It is said that the Reagen economic model of spend and charge (deficit) that the government currently uses influences oil prices in a bad way. $1= 1.6 euros. i.e. Dollar falling in world value.

With uncertainty comes speculation. Short term fluctuations don't last forever.

I'm not sure that worldwide demand suddenly increases in a one year period to crisis levels.I think we would see a gradual rise in price if this was legit.

I believe that if diesels were in more widespread use in the country the total use of petroleum would diminish greatly. That would mean less profit and control for big oil companies over a long term picture.Who knows what interests are flexing their muscles to maintain the status quo.

One thing is clear in my mind. The U.S economy is driven by goods and services provided by diesel trucks. If diesel goes to $8 or $10 a gallon,like some sources predicted,then the 20 or 30 k you lose on your truck will be chicken s*it compared to the devastation caused to the economy.Think about major changes in the American way of life.
Well said...

Well I don't know about $8-$9 prices just yet but diesel prices have not fallen at hte end of the heatining oil season as predicted. Gasoline is $3.65 up about $.35 while diesel is holding fairly constant at $4.19 up $.10 for the same period.
As stated above $8.00 a gallon fuel, regardless whether it is gas or diesel, can not be supported by our economy in the near future.

I would buy one in a second!!

On another note, The CEO of Petro Canada had the balls to try to explain to the media that their record last quarter profit of over $1 Billion was in NO WAY related to the pump prices.

Yeah, Right!!

Not sticking up for oil companies-----but remember the difference between profit and profit margin------------which is constantly misrepresented by the media. One is gross receipts and the other is net. When other countries have no emmsion controls they will burn fuel to beat the band-------cause it is cheap for them!!! We emission ourselves to death in the name of "being green". One nation will not clean up the earth----get it!!!!!!!!!!! If you think the politicians don't have friends and interests in high fuel and food prices, you are sleeping. When does the gov't drop there prices (taxes) to help out the working folks??? But they sure want ram private business if they "think" they are getting too much of the pie!!!!!

Not sticking up for oil companies-
Exxon Pumped Less Oil on the Way to $10.9 Billion Profit

By Marianne Lavelle (http://www.usnews.com/Topics/tag/Author/m/marianne_lavelle/index.html)
Posted May 1, 2008

Beneath ExxonMobil's $10.9 billion in profits—a first-quarter record for the company and the second-highest in the company's history—lies another number that should give pause to consumers and policymakers worldwide. The world's largest publicly owned oil company is producing a lot less oil.
Related News

Where Exxon and Friends Spend Big Profits (http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/where-exxon-and-friends-spend-big-profits.html)
Exxon's Profits: Measuring a Record Windfall (http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record-windfall.html)
Exxon's Search for Oil Gets Harder (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-barrel/2008/02/19/exxons-search-for-oil-gets-harder.html)
Video: Pain at the Pump (http://usnews.feedroom.com/?fr_story=d664cc7583e62551471fc9319275afc577c2261b&rf=bm) Exxon's oil production was down 10 percent in the quarter, greatly accelerating a trend that has been evident for some time. Exxon saw a 2.4 percent decline in oil production between 2006 and 2007. Venezuela's grab of Exxon assets, the production limits set by OPEC countries where Exxon operates, and Exxon's own decisions to sell some of its fields all contributed to the decline, the company said in announcing its first-quarter figures today. But even excluding all of these factors, and counting natural gas production, which is increasing, the company's overall production slid 3 percent in the quarter.
Seen in the context of the production decline, Exxon's profits are even more staggering. The $10.9 billion the company netted in the first three months of the year was a 17 percent increase over last year and was surpassed only by the $11.7 billion profit Exxon reported in the fourth quarter of 2007. But on a per-barrel basis (counting both oil and natural gas), Exxon's profits in the first three months of this year leapt about 24 percent.
Speaking on the trend recently, before Exxon's latest numbers, Peter Hitchens, an oil analyst at Seymour Pierce in London, said that he had concerns about the future trends for all of the major integrated oil companies because of the struggle they are having growing their production. He noted that all of them have had to cut back their forecasts, and as recently as 2000, BP had been projecting 5 percent increases per year.
This week, BP reported first-quarter profit up 63 percent, to $7.62 billion, while Shell's net income was up 25 percent to $9.08 billion—but both saw production that was essentially flat.
"There are several problems for the companies," says Hitchens. "You've got nationalization, or I suppose, greed, coming through in the countries where they operate. When the oil price is low, the countries need the oil companies to fund development. But when the oil price is high, the countries don't actually need the majors because they can outsource all their needs to oil service companies." Not only Venezuela, but Russia and the Caspian countries have reduced the stake that outside oil companies have had in their national petroleum assets. The struggle over oil in Nigeria has been a constant headache for Shell. That's why Hitchens thinks the global market conditions are stronger for service companies like Halliburton and Schlumberger than for the giant oil companies like Exxon, Shell, and BP—despite the astonishing levels of profits they command on oil when it nears $120 per barrel.
"Profits are staying very, very high," Hitchens says. "But they're struggling to put those profits into growing the business."
It is clear, however, that the oil companies have one reliable place they can put their profits. Exxon accelerated its already aggressive share buy-back program, plowing $8 billion—or 73 percent of the quarter's profits—into the company's own stock. Exxon reduced shares outstanding by 1.8 percent and, including dividends, distributed $9.9 billion to shareholders in the first quarter, a 13 percent increase over last year.
Tags: profits (http://www.usnews.com/Topics/tag/Subject/p/profits/index.html) | oil (http://www.usnews.com/Topics/tag/Subject/o/oil/index.html) | Exxon Mobil (http://www.usnews.com/Topics/tag/Organizations/e/exxon_mobil/index.html)



You have got to be kidding me .The gov(Conservative) does cut taxes.......for the rich
The oil companys have posted the largest recorded profits for a corporation in history.
Wake up and stop listening to the Rush/Sean lies and misinformation. Taxes are not your problem, corporate influence (lobbyists) and profits are. Complain about middle class jobs shipped to the cheapest market in the name of profits.(let the free market decide..ha,ha)

Wouldn't you feel stupid when you find out your supporting people who pay 15% taxes on millions while you pay 26% on your hourly wage.

China has no pollution standards and the athletes are talking about wearing protective masks during the olympics.The factories dump right into rivers with no standards what so ever.

Just remember ,when you hear those spin meisters (Rush,etc) talking about low taxes,they mean for those making 300,000 k a year and more. Wake up and stop supporting the people picking your pocket.

Not sticking up for oil companies-----but remember the difference between profit and profit margin------------which is constantly misrepresented by the media. One is gross receipts and the other is net.

I know what you are saying but profit is profit and the oil companies are raking it in in record amounts.

As fuel prices climb it's looking like GM will once again be behind the demand curve even with the 4.5L diesel. The 4.5L should've been on the market 5 years ago. Sure hope they have plans for smaller displacement higher fuel efficiency diesels cause that's where things are quickly heading.

I am not about to try and read all the BS flowing with this thread so I will take the summary of what I have read and say this.

This move by GM is necessary and it is also necessary for all auto manufacturers. In case you have no idea, all of europe uses diesel fuel for their cars. The reason...better fuel economy and lower emissions.

If anyone paid attention to the reason for ULSD being pushed into the market to replace the LSD diesel which replaced regular diesel then you might have a clue why this is happening. Instead of looking into why and blaming the govt and anyone else for doing something most of you THINK is dumb but have no clue you just rant instead of educating yourselves.

The change in diesel is about LOWERING EMISSIONS. The new diesel engines have lower emissions output than gas engines and get higher fuel mileage.

The CAFE standards set by the EPA cannot be met without changing over to diesel engines. Gas engines are going to go away for the most part and be replaced by diesel and hybrids including diesel hybrids.

2009 models of all cars will have many more diesel powered cars and trucks than is currently on the market. Get used to it....diesels are the future cars and trucks.

I am not about to try and read all the BS flowing with this thread so I will take the summary of what I have read and say this.

This move by GM is necessary and it is also necessary for all auto manufacturers. In case you have no idea, all of europe uses diesel fuel for their cars. The reason...better fuel economy and lower emissions.

If anyone paid attention to the reason for ULSD being pushed into the market to replace the LSD diesel which replaced regular diesel then you might have a clue why this is happening. Instead of looking into why and blaming the govt and anyone else for doing something most of you THINK is dumb but have no clue you just rant instead of educating yourselves.

The change in diesel is about LOWERING EMISSIONS. The new diesel engines have lower emissions output than gas engines and get higher fuel mileage.

The CAFE standards set by the EPA cannot be met without changing over to diesel engines. Gas engines are going to go away for the most part and be replaced by diesel and hybrids including diesel hybrids.

2009 models of all cars will have many more diesel powered cars and trucks than is currently on the market. Get used to it....diesels are the future cars and trucks.

So using your logic taking trucks that used to get 19mpg and putting emissions systems on them that result in those same vehicles now needing a larger engine to achieve similar horse power while getting 15mpg is what was intended? I think that kind of logic is exactly what people are pissed off about. Sorry with diesel engines still adding around 3-5k to a vehicles price and by the fuel for these vehicles being 30% more than gas, it is not the future....

It has nothing to do with your logic. It is about govt mandates for emissions and fuel mileage. Heavyduty trucks are not included in the CAFE standard.

The new diesels have more power and get better fuel mileage and are smaller in size. Like the 4.5 liter vs 6.6 and the 4.5 has more power than the first 01 6.6 liter eng has.

I don't get what you mean by using a larger eng to get similiar HP? That is not the case. Duramax engines get more power and are the same size. Fuel mileage depends on who you talk to.

Diesel engines are going to replace gas engines. It is going to happen whether you get pissed off or not. It is not about you and the other ranters.

What he means is the 6.7L Cummins vs the 5.9L and the 6.4L Powerstroke vs the 6.0L. The engines have grown in size to maintain their power ratings while saddled with the DPF, EGR, etc equipment.
The Duramax is going through "some" changes to meet the 2010 emission standards also.

So you say that diesels are going to replace gas engines? I bought the diesel I currently own because I needed a truck. not neccesarily this large of a truck, but a truck. And The diesel version got better milage than its gas counterpart, and diesel fuel was about a dollar cheaper per gallon. The next truck I buy will be a a half ton gasser. It's still a truck, the fuel is cheaper, the truck is cheaper. I still need a truck, but with fuel prices in general driving everything up, I, and many others aren't going to be able to swallow the diesel vehicle price tag. they can try and force diesels into the population, but that doesn't mean we're going to buy them. I used to say I would never own a gas vehicle again, but, dang, I see everyone pumping gas that costs way less than the stuff I'm pumping. Why would I buy another diesel?

I been throwing the idea around about going back to a gasser, the new 6.2's in the new HD next year sound pretty good

Oppps nevermind, I think the 6.2 are only on the 1/2 models. Still be nice to have

I been throwing the idea around about going back to a gasser, the new 6.2's in the new HD next year sound pretty good

Oppps nevermind, I think the 6.2 are only on the 1/2 models. Still be nice to have

Yeah, like I said, the only reason I wound up in a 3/4 ton was because that's all the diesel was available in. And it was worth it then because of the low cost of the fuel. It's nice that they are now puting it in a 1/2 ton, but not with these fuel prices. I haven't seen any factual fuel milage numbers, but from what i've heard, it won't be all that much better than the gasser for the sticker price. I doubt it will get enough mileage to make up for the engine option cost and the higher fuel cost.

I guess it is OK to icrease gas engine CI to get more power but not diesels????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We will see.

GM is facing the worst year for car sales in over 10 with this building recession.

How long can a Company loose Billions of dollars and still invest in new plants, new engineering and other expenditures ?

If GM perceives that demand isn't there for the 4.5, that expenditure will be quickly cut.

What are losses exactly? I would keep investing billions in engineering, more efficient plants, etc. too - it makes me more money while looking like a loss and saving millions? in taxes. Look at the LMM thread - GM has certainly not stopped selling its LMM diesels. A few guys have jumped ship, but many including me need this truck or its equivalent for work. A gasser still costs more when you have to commute with weight or pulling a trailer. I just doubt the hype. I think GM will survive just fine until the meteor hits. If they were really going under the oil companies would drop their profits a tad, it seems their relationship is at least partly symbiotic.

What are losses exactly? I would keep investing billions in engineering, more efficient plants, etc. too - it makes me more money while looking like a loss and saving millions? in taxes. Look at the LMM thread - GM has certainly not stopped selling its LMM diesels. A few guys have jumped ship, but many including me need this truck or its equivalent for work. A gasser still costs more when you have to commute with weight or pulling a trailer. I just doubt the hype. I think GM will survive just fine until the meteor hits. If they were really going under the oil companies would drop their profits a tad, it seems their relationship is at least partly symbiotic.
Agreed...

GM's Lutz Says Alternative Autos May Be Third of Sales by 2015

By John Hughes
March 18 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GM%3AUS) may get as many as one-third of its U.S. auto sales by about 2015 from vehicles such as hybrids that use technology different than current internal-combustion engines, Vice Chairman Bob Lutz (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Bob+Lutz&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said.
``Around 2015 we're going to have to sell a ton of hybrids whether people want them or not,'' because of new U.S. fuel- economy standards, Lutz told reporters today in Washington. ``It's basically going to result in the quasi-disappearance of V-8 engines.''
A U.S. law enacted in December requires vehicles to meet a national average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, rising from the current 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.5 mpg for pickup trucks, sport- utility vehicles and vans. The new law is an effort to cut oil consumption and curb global warming.
GM, the world's largest automaker, sold 3.82 million cars and light trucks in the U.S. last year, including about 8,400 gasoline-electric hybrids. The Detroit-based company is pursuing fuel-efficient technologies such as hydrogen fuel-cell autos and the so-called plug-in hybrid Volt, a sedan slated to go on sale by 2010 that would recharge at household electrical outlets.
Lutz said he expects GM to sell about 100,000 Volts by 2012. He repeated that the company's cost to meet the U.S. law's 35-mpg average will be $6,000 to $7,000 per vehicle.
To contact the reporter on this story: John Hughes (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John+Hughes&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in Washington at jhughes5@bloomberg.net (jhughes5@bloomberg.net)

What he means is the 6.7L Cummins vs the 5.9L and the 6.4L Powerstroke vs the 6.0L. The engines have grown in size to maintain their power ratings while saddled with the DPF, EGR, etc equipment.
The Duramax is going through "some" changes to meet the 2010 emission standards also.They get shitty milage too. Almost makes you wonder what good having a cleaner burning engine, that burns more fuel is worth.

GM's Lutz...said he expects GM to sell about 100,000 Volts by 2012. He repeated that the company's cost to meet the U.S. law's 35-mpg average will be $6,000 to $7,000 per vehicle.


An additional $6,000 to $7,000 per vehicle just to meet the new fuel economy standards does not account for inflation or any profit margins for the manufacturers. This is going to make existing vehicles worth a lot more in the used market, especially those that get good fuel economy with the least expensive fuels.

People seem to think that "Plug-In" electric vehicles are going to get their fuel for free. But the cost of electricity is rising faster every year and will be directly tied to the cost of other energy sources. Also, if electric vehicle usage becomes widespread, get ready for some type of TAX meter to be installed at the recharging stations so that the government can collect their road taxes.

This is going to get very interesting.

This is going to get very interesting.

Agreed

Want to know why fuel prices are so high? Write your congressman!!!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,538412,00.html


Here are some of the solutions in addition to new engines.

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241480

Agreed! I computed it! I'm still saving my diving my 2500 duramax over my 1500 4.8!

Yup even though diesel is more it is still "cheaper" to drive diesels are more efficient hands down

wonder if they will make a heavy half or a light duty 3/4 with the 4.5? I think it would sell good.

wonder if they will make a heavy half or a light duty 3/4 with the 4.5? I think it would sell good.

I think it will be a heavy half. GM is trying to get rid of the light duty name like the 2500 (non HD)

I think it will be a heavy half. GM is trying to get rid of the light duty name like the 2500 (non HD)

I think your right, I think you'll see the 1500HD come back

I think your right, I think you'll see the 1500HD come back

Thanks;):D

The 1500HD was the same as the 2500 in GVWR. Based on the tow ratings of a 1500 the 1500HD should have a decent tow rating for the average joe blow's recreation towing. They are making travel trailers much lighter these days. Even a 30 - 32 ft fifth wheel is within the tow rating of the 1500HD.

The 4.5 has a higher HP and torque rating than the LB7 and it had plenty of power. You know that a chip will be available as soon as they hit the marketplace with the truck.

I have 265K miles on my truck and it is staying around for a while and the 4.5 will likely be my next truck.

The 1500HD was the same as the 2500 in GVWR. Based on the tow ratings of a 1500 the 1500HD should have a decent tow rating for the average joe blow's recreation towing. They are making travel trailers much lighter these days. Even a 30 - 32 ft fifth wheel is within the tow rating of the 1500HD.

The 4.5 has a higher HP and torque rating than the LB7 and it had plenty of power. You know that a chip will be available as soon as they hit the marketplace with the truck.

I don't know if this is the case for the 1500HD, but..
I've driven a 95 2500 with 6.5L, old body style 1500 with a 5.7L, 97 2500 with 5.7L, and a 03 2500HD with 6L all with a 6000lb trailer behind them. I live in an area that has a lot of mountains (lots of 5 to 7% grades) and the issue towing with the half tons has always been the brakes. All the trucks could pull the weight up the hills. But the 1500 was kind of scary when coming down that same hill. I can't imagine what 10,000lbs feels like on these newer half tons with very similar brakes to the 1500 I drove.:eyecrazy: Maybe on flat ground they are fine towing that kind of weight, but I'm staying away from a regular 1500.

I'm really hoping the 4.5L comes in a 2500HD or the 1500HD has beefed up brakes over the 1500. If neither is the case, I'll get a 2500HD with the 6.6L.

The 1500HD I looked at about 03-04 before they discontinued it was actually a 2500 chassis with 8 lug wheels. It was a 2500 with a different badge.

The problem with the supply is not that they have not built any more capacity for refining. The problem is that they had to spend billions on making the diesel cleaner burning. Every oil comany had to build new processes to remove more and more sulpher from their product. This was billions invested without being able to make one single dime in return for the money spent. The problem is with the environmental regulations that have been pushed through Congress.

and that is looking to get a lot worse this november.

And the polar bear now being protected is going to hinder any drilling in the artic. The polar bear is not endangered and neither is their environment but the tree huggers have convinced the govt to put it on the list. This is all about stopping drilling in the artic and about you and I driving our cars and causing the polar bears environment to be affected so that the tree huggers can stop us from driving our cars.

The problem with the supply is not that they have not built any more capacity for refining. The problem is that they had to spend billions on making the diesel cleaner burning. Every oil comany had to build new processes to remove more and more sulpher from their product. This was billions invested without being able to make one single dime in return for the money spent. The problem is with the environmental regulations that have been pushed through Congress.



Yeah and BTW both Hillary AND Obama want to "get tougher" on the EPA...So don't expect either of the two if elected to help out the situation. They will make it worse if they get their ways.

You are right about that madmax.

I'm betting as soon the public gets tired of high prices, oil exploration and drilling will take off. Problem with the polar bears is the melting polar ice caps, bears have no way to get to their ocean prey (seals). Polar bear population is dropping.

I'm betting as soon the public gets tired of high prices, oil exploration and drilling will take off. Problem with the polar bears is the melting polar ice caps, bears have no way to get to their ocean prey (seals). Polar bear population is dropping.

Here is a quote from a Canadian newspaper (Canada holds about 2/3 of the worlds polar bear population).

"The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s."

Article here
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

Other articles point out that the population raise has to do with the harp seal being protected. The bears food supply became more abundant, therefore so did the bears.

Of course there are articles that pick that one apart, but most of the gloom and doom articles are based on predictions, not actual surveys of the population. Of course the bears migrate to where the food is, so these somewhat local surveys can swing both ways depending on where the bears happen to be. Food for thought.

Yea, I bet that result is due to migration. Here's a quote from the link about the recent Bush administration decision:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/364218_polarbear23.html

After months of delay, last week the Bush administration finally acknowledged that melting sea ice is pushing polar bears to the brink of extinction.

Anyway, I'd think Alaska oil exploration could be done without additional harm to melting sea ice.

There's also a recent report that shows polar ice is at a 30-year high.

Heard on the news the other day, that the Governor of Alaska is filing a lawsuit so that the Polar Bear can not be protected anymore, since their numbers are growing. This may help out in the Drilling in Alaska.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080521/polar_bear_080521/20080521?hub=TopStories

Brian

Heard on the news the other day, that the Governor of Alaska is filing a lawsuit so that the Polar Bear can not be protected anymore, since their numbers are growing. This may help out in the Drilling in Alaska.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080521/polar_bear_080521/20080521?hub=TopStories

Brian

left winged liberals will make sure that does not happen.

Anyone else see the report a couple of weeks ago about the scene showing the majestic glaciers in Al Gore's award winning documentary being stolen CGI from the opening credits of the movie 'The Day After Tomorrow'? CNN showed both scenes side by side. They are identical only Gore's version had been brightened up to make it prettier. If he's stupid enough to steal footage from a major motion picture, is he really the guy you want to go to for advice about the environment?

hell here in los angles i am already seeing 5 dollar diesel and 4 dollar regular what gives where are the breaks OH WAIT THAT IS THE PEDAL ON THE LEFT

Seattle we are at 4.09 for reg and 4.99 for the diesel. I personally still plan on buying a diesel next year when i'm making a bit more money but it won't be my DD. It's not only the cost of fuel for me but the size of the vehicle. I'm downtown way to much to try and find parking and other pains to be driving a full size or a planned 2500 HD. Just to much truck but it will be fun as my "Play" and Work vehicle. I sold my 1500 for a car (because of gas prices) and totally regret it. Hopefully the car will be gone by the end of summer if I can pay enough off on it and then some cheaper SUV or some sort.

Correct, the world uses far more diesel than gas. World demand has gone way up, especially in China and Korea.

It was 30 years ago we built the last refinery in the USA. Several have been tried to be built since. BUT the EPA stops it, or the Not In My Back Yard groups stop it. Bush wanted to build refineries on closed military bases, but the not in my back yards stoped those projects.



The problem is that they have not built a new refinery in 30 years. In those 30 years, over 100 refineries in the USA have been shut down. In those 30 years the USA demand for fuel, gas and diesel has gone up, but our production capacity has gone way down.

The USLD fuel compounds that problem. USLD takes longer to refine that the old LSD took. ULSD also cost more to refine.



Correct we do import refined diesel. Also true about world demand for diesel.

Lack of refining capacity is the biggest problem. Heck producing wells in the Gulf of mexico are being throttled back. The reason is, the refineries at the end of the Marianas pipe line are running at full capacity. We can pump more crude oil, than they can refine.



Big Oils profit margin is exactly the same as it was 1 year ago, or five years ago, between 9 and 10% which is very low by business standards.

First you must understand record profits are due to record sales. Sure sales are down in the USA, but they are way up in China, Korea, and most of South East Asia.

Something else one should understand. That is who really makes all the money in Oil.

Oil company profits are taxed at 41%. So they keep 59 cents of every dollar they earn, and Uncle Sam gets 41 cents. So Exxon, Shell, BP, Conaco, Cheveron and the rest all give 41% of their profit to Uncle Sam. So who is really making the big money?

Do not forget that on top of that Uncle Sam gets about 60 cents a gallon in tax at the pump. Do not forget that uncle Sam made 100 Billion on oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

Again tell me who makes all the money.



Please Name one refinery in the USA that is sitting idle, not counting the two that are down for repaires due to receint fires.

The exact same oil companies run the refineries in Europe. The government is not forcing that, demand is what forces what they produce. The problem also lies in most the refiners have not been finished with the updates needed to produce ULSD. It takes time to change the refining process.



A Monopoly is where one or two, maybe three companies control the market. There are a whole lot more than four big oil companies. You have BP, Shell, Cheveron, Citgo, Conaco, Exxon, Valaro, and many smaller ones.

Most people who have record sales, end up with record profits....That is exactly how it works.

Check out gold trends. That is what our dollar is based on. The cost of Gold and the cost of a barrel of crude have risen at very similar rates for the past 50 years. A barrel of crude is has only gone up less than 10% more than gold over that time span.



LOL. Could work...but then hybreds would not be worked on.

That sir...is not true. Our currency is based on nothing and money is printed out of thin air by the Fed. The dollar is not weak it is failing. We cannot afford the welfare state that our country has instilled, let alone the war. If our spending habits do not change our dollar will not be worth anything.

Our country has to borrow from Saudi Arabia and CHINA!!! (of all countries) to the tune of about 300 million dollars a day just to keep up with the ludicrous spending habits. :rant:

Anyway, I would love a Diesel Half-Ton Crew...oh the possibilities...