Right before Christmas, regular unleaded was $2.95 locally. Between Christmas and New Years it went to $3.03, then $3.09. Today, it's at $3.19 at all my local stations. What the hell happened since XMAS to drive the price up again? I thought it was bump just for the holidays, but that certainly has been proven to not be the case.

I read in the wall street journal a couple days ago that Iran's recent temper tantrum/military exercise has somewhat spooked the oil market driving costs up. It also doesn't help that they are a founding member of OPEC.

Iran and its naval bravado in the Strait of Hormuz has given rise to oil prices over the last couple of weeks.

SPECULATION !!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEseCMEa0wJ_cWiapUANNSbOJB3g?docId=fb8d1c835e484eb79b0c0b13379e51c2

Oil prices are down Wednesday as traders booked profits from a 4 percent surge at the start of the year.

Benchmark U.S. crude fell by 50 cents to $102.46 per barrel in midday trading in New York.

Prices dipped after surging Tuesday on heightened concerns that Iran would try to close off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, blocking oil tankers, in reaction to possible economic sanctions.

Traders say they're now waiting to see if the situation heats up following Iran's military exercises over the weekend.

whats the suprise- you thought the would keep going down?!

whats the suprise- you thought the would keep going down?!

 

 

Sure did, until the election at least.

Uhh near me it's been a steady 3.40-50 for regular. 3.15 sounds delightful.

Uhh near me it's been a steady 3.40-50 for regular. 3.15 sounds delightful.

 

 

You must be in north-Jersey, the other NJ.

Uhh near me it's been a steady 3.40-50 for regular. 3.15 sounds delightful.

 

That's cuz you're in rich-town. Go southeast a little. Edison is around $3.09 right now.

I always fill up in the town I work in. It's been going back and forth between 3.01 and 3.10.

I kind of gave up caring. With my truck it's never cheap.

Maybe we should stop exporting fuel thereby creating a fake lack of supply and driving up of the prices here.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-gas-other-fuels-top-200739135.html

Maybe we should stop exporting fuel thereby creating a fake lack of supply and driving up of the prices here.

 

http://finance.yahoo...-200739135.html

 

That would make sense.... so of course it will never happen.

Last night one of the cheap places on RT 22 in North plainfield was at $3.09 - this morning, it was up to $3.17.

I read that article as well and was amazed. All this time I thought we were trying to reduce our dependency on imports

Maybe we should stop exporting fuel thereby creating a fake lack of supply and driving up of the prices here.

 

http://finance.yahoo...-200739135.html

 

Say what? We should have the US government tell private business who they can sell their products to even more then we already do? Are you advocating price controls by barring exports?

 

We are on our way to being the number one oil producer by 2017 (http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/N-American-oil-output-could-top-40-year-old-peak-2193837.php) and we quickly approaching oil independence as we are using less gasoline and producing more and more oil. What you are seeing on he numbers in the article you listed is that we are also one of the largest refiners in the world, we are actually importing far more crude then we can use, refining it, and selling it back out at a profit.

Yeah overnight it will jump 8 cents , same gas in those tanks when it was $2.99 a gallon and usually takes a 2 weeks for it to drop those 8 cents !!!

Yeah overnight it will jump 8 cents , same gas in those tanks when it was $2.99 a gallon and usually takes a 2 weeks for it to drop those 8 cents !!!

 

A lot of the time the seller does not own the gas in the tanks and how much his baseline price is. If he does, he needs to make more money right now or he can't buy the same amount of gas next week.

Considering the advancements we have been able to make in the fields of computer technology and medical technology it is a real head scratcher that my brand new vehicle gets about the same gas mileage as my last car bought in the early 90s. It's a joke, we will be off of oil as soon as it is no longer profitable for the folks with the deep pockets to extract and refine it.

it is a real head scratcher that my brand new vehicle gets about the same gas mileage as my last car bought in the early 90s

 

The issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain amount of mass. Each year, the weight of cars goes up due primarily to safety equipment but also for ride, pollution and sound deadening and the efficiencies are eaten up through the weight gain. If any car maker could make a car that responds like it's got 200hp and gets 100mpg, they'd build it and corner the market. People always tout the European designs, but those cars are smaller and diesels. Diesel has more btu per gallon but the US diesel standards are stricter than europe.

Considering the advancements we have been able to make in the fields of computer technology and medical technology it is a real head scratcher that my brand new vehicle gets about the same gas mileage as my last car bought in the early 90s. It's a joke, we will be off of oil as soon as it is no longer profitable for the folks with the deep pockets to extract and refine it.

 

For one thing the mandated ethanol BS reduces mpg by quite a bit.

What was the horse power of your old car vs new car, and what did your old car weight compared to you new car? Cars have gotten considerably heavier to to safety and crash regulations. Your average car (lets say a Honda Accord) weight 3200 pounds in 1995 and it weighs 3600 pounds today (about as much as a 70's Caprice btw) . It had 170 bhp and the new one has 271 bhp. It also gets about 4 miles to the gallon more.

 

There is no free lunch.

Last night one of the cheap places on RT 22 in North plainfield was at $3.09 - this morning, it was up to $3.17.

 

If you go deep into the ghetto (I work in Plainfield) its super cheap, but you might get carjacked while filling up lol. Not sure what todays price is.

If you go deep into the ghetto (I work in Plainfield) its super cheap, but you might get carjacked while filling up lol. Not sure what todays price is.

www.newjerseygasprices.com

<br>

The issue is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a certain amount of mass. Each year, the weight of cars goes up due primarily to safety equipment but also for ride, pollution and sound deadening and the efficiencies are eaten up through the weight gain. If any car maker could make a car that responds like it's got 200hp and gets 100mpg, they'd build it and corner the market. People always tout the European designs, but those cars are smaller and diesels. Diesel has more btu per gallon but the US diesel standards are stricter than europe.<br>

</p>

What was the horse power of your old car vs new car, and what did your old car weight compared to you new car? Cars have gotten considerably heavier to to safety and crash regulations. Your average car (lets say a Honda Accord) weight 3200 pounds in 1995 and it weighs 3600 pounds today (about as much as a 70's Caprice btw) . It had 170 bhp and the new one has 271 bhp. It also gets about 4 miles to the gallon more.<br>

 

 

My new car is approximately 400lbs heavier, AWD, and .5l bigger engine. So yes, the gas mileage isn't going to be the same. However, my new car gets substantially less MPG [20%+]. It's not exactly an apples to apples but that wasn't my point. I understand the physics behind only being able to get a certain level of efficiency out of a gallon of gas with the internal combustion engine. My point was the lack of innovation in terms of the technology we are using under the hood. Perhaps the internal combustion engine isn't the way to go? At least not for everything. Computers in the old days used vacuum tubes, now we use microchips. In the future we may use biologically based blobs that can store energy, data, etc.

 

I don't see nearly the level of innovation in the auto field that I see in other fields. I find it hard to believe no one has found a better way to do it. Like Rudolf Diesel found a better way at one point. Then he "fell off" a boat after having retired to his stateroom and instead of his engine running on agricultural based oil [corn/peanut oil] or coal dust the big oil companies of the time invented "diesel gasoline". There are documented cases of auto companies and oil companies buying start ups that have "revolutionary" technologies. Maybe the ideas didn't pan out or maybe they were integrated into existing designs or maybe they were shelved because why change what is broken [by that I mean why change the status quo if you have a stranglehold on the market and your wealth is ever increasing?]

 

I've seen &quot;experiments&quot; where individuals sealed the undercarriage of their vehicles and increased their MPG substantially (as well as decreased cabin noise). No manufacturers do that to my knowledge [possibly with good reason I don't know]

 

It might sound cynical and a bit like a conspiracy theorist's rant but it just doesn't make sense to me.

Another comparison of mid 90's cars to today.

 

In 1995 the hot Ferrari you could actually buy (not counting the F50 and the like) was the F355. It had 380 bhp, 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, top speed 187mph. In today's money it cost $190k for the bottom of barrel model

 

Today a Ford Mustang GT 5.0L has 412 HP, does 0-60 in 4.7 seconds and 182 mph. I can pretty much guarantee you it also handles better, it is safer and better equipped. It also costs $30k.

 

If you think a modern car hasn't improved since the 90's you just might be wrong.

 

That Mustang gets the combine EPA millage of 20mpg, better then a 1995 Ford Taurus.

 

So you can buy a sports car that performs like Ferrari did in 1995 for about 1/7th the price that gets better mileage then a family sedan got in the same year.

If you think a modern car hasn't improved since the 90's you just might be wrong.

 

Again, I'm not saying cars haven't improved. I'm just saying that they haven't made nearly the leaps I would think were possible given explosions in other areas of technology. I would think the use of modern day computer modeling alone would help the auto industry or startups make leaps and bounds.

 

Also, improving handling, features, and HP does little about the main thing people **** about, MPG [directly correlated to gas prices of course]

 

I can buy the comparison to the Taurus because that isn't line of cars that was produced with MPG in mind. Also, it totally depends on the engine package. And let's be honest, the often advertised MPG of the Mustang, which is based on the smallest engine, goes out the window once you put your foot into it.

If we were progressing by the leaps and bounds we thought we would be.... We would have flying cars by now!

My new car is approximately 400lbs heavier, AWD, and .5l bigger engine. So yes, the gas mileage isn't going to be the same. However, my new car gets substantially less MPG [20%+]. It's not exactly an apples to apples but that wasn't my point. I understand the physics behind only being able to get a certain level of efficiency out of a gallon of gas with the internal combustion engine. My point was the lack of innovation in terms of the technology we are using under the hood. Perhaps the internal combustion engine isn't the way to go? At least not for everything. Computers in the old days used vacuum tubes, now we use microchips. In the future we may use biologically based blobs that can store energy, data, etc.

 

Sure there is better technology, but define better. Electric motors can develop HUGE torque but batteries suck, you can only store so much electricity. Hydrogen power would be awesome except for the part that making it is more expensive then oil for the power it produces, its highly explosive (see Hindenburg circa 1937) and you depend on the local teenager to handle it at the gas station not to mention crashes. Gasoline is remarkably stable, easy to transport, store and fuel into vehicles for the power it provides.

 

We could make cars lighter but we would have to use aluminum and carbon fiber for the components both of which cost a lot more then steel. It is all a trade off.

 

I don't see nearly the level of innovation in the auto field that I see in other fields. I find it hard to believe no one has found a better way to do it. Like Rudolf Diesel found a better way at one point. Then he "fell off" a boat after having retired to his stateroom and instead of his engine running on agricultural based oil [corn/peanut oil] or coal dust the big oil companies of the time invented "diesel gasoline". There are documented cases of auto companies and oil companies buying start ups that have "revolutionary" technologies. Maybe the ideas didn't pan out or maybe they were integrated into existing designs or maybe they were shelved because why change what is broken [by that I mean why change the status quo if you have a stranglehold on the market and your wealth is ever increasing?]

 

Direct injected engines, variable displacement, more efficient turbochargers, all those things are now common in cars. They are pretty significant leaps, improve performance and fuel economy, and cost more. The problem is not lack of innovation, there has been plenty, the problem is that people want more car. People want more horsepower, bigger cars, AWD or 4WD, limited slip, navigation systems, 10 speaker stereo's, blue tooth, etc, etc. All those things add weight and use power the engine has to generate. My 1997 Jetta had 115bhp, for that horse power today you can get 60+ mpg with a similar fit.

 

I'm all for Diesel engines but until very recently they were much dirtier and performed nowhere near as well and it still comes from oil. If you want to make it from soy beans or rapeseed you are looking at around 1 acre per 100 gallons. At 255mil vehicles in the US, using an average of 280 gallons per year (based on internet data) that means we need 111mil square miles of soy beans per year which is roughly 70% of the entire surface of the world, oceans included. And that's for the US alone.