4MIDLIF

Robert,

Yeah, my comment was a bit glib, and for the most part, your analysis is correct. Without turning this into a stock thread - I will comment briefly.

Venezuela has not been good for oil stocks. However, I got into a couple of issues right after the oils "tanked" (pun intended) with companies that do not rely heavily on Venezuelan crude. They have recovered fairly well, and I think will outperform the analysts for this quarter.

Usually it takes weeks to months for the price at the pump to be affected by increases in the futures market, but right now it is happening within days. Oil in the pipeline (ooh, another one) has been purchased at lower prices. As long as Dubya doesn't open up the reserves - and I think that is very unlikely - I look for good profits this quarter.

My dividend checks for the last quarter will pay for a lot of gas.

I'm not a broker, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express...

Nicole

Thanks, guys! That was pretty interesting. It seems that some of you have already discovered alternatives (turbo diesel, etc) while for others, the pain threashold has not quite been crossed, yet.

Sometimes we only feel the pain when it hits us longer term. Of course, we all hope that the prices are going to go down again, once the Iraq conflict is solved.

I agree that when I drive the 928 and want to have fun, I don't think all that much about how much fuel that takes. Surprisingly, I find that I usually get at least 16 miles out of the gallon - when travelling on the freeway, it can be up to 22.

That's far better than the 10mpg the German magazine Auto Motor und Sport got out of the Cayenne turbo. They blasted the Cayenne turbo for it's lack of ride comfort and fuel efficiency. Only three stars out of five were awarded in the test. Think about it: At $5 per gallon in Europe, every mile in a Cayenne turbo would cost 50 cents in fuel alone. Add maintenance, registration, insurance, depreciation, etc, and you are looking at astronimical cost.

In comparison, we 928 owners here in the US can consider ourselves lucky. Even with today's gas prices. It's all realative, I guess...

Doug Hillary

Hi there,
at present in Australia and with variances between States our fuel prices are about $4 - $4.50 Australian Dollar per Imperial Gallon ( Exch. rate $1A = 60 US cents )
This is rise in fuel prices over the last few months of about 20%

John Struthers

Gasoline is fuel.
Pattycakes needs fuel to operate.
I like driving Pattycakes.
I will buy the fuel.
Irregardless, of price. <img border="0" alt="[king]" title="" src="graemlins/r.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />
"Mongo just pawn in great game of life."
John S.
P.S.
Maybe fuel costs will get so bad that I'll be able to build a stable of performance cars, <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" /> CHEAP!

ViribusUnits

Thus the joys of owning a US 83... With my low 9.3:1 compression ratio, I don't have the power of a 83 Euro S, but I can use $1.56 per gallon regular unleaded. I stayed away from the higher compression ratios when I bought the car.

I dare say a increase past $2.00 per gallon would deffently effect my life. However, it wouldn't effect my driveing. It would effect the other stuff I buy. There would be less of it.

If it busted 3.00 a gallon, I'd be forced to buy a compact, or sub compact car, because the number of miles I drive is non negotiable. I gotta see the girl freind every second weekend. Thats a mear 700+ miles round trip.

Course, if you want to see a truck that will suck down fuel, drive a semi tractor trailer combo for a while. You'll get all of 3-4 mpg.

Don't be too sure about the turbo-desiles. As they are becomeing more of a passanger vehicle, the goverments are looking into reduceing their emmisions. While desiles produce very few hydrocarbons, and CO, they're not so good on the NOX. Traditional Cats won't work on a desiles. Somethings gotta give. Also, right now the price of desile is HIGHER where I live than regular gasoline. About 2-3 cents per gallon. Too many turbo-desile F-250s...

Also, don't be too sure on the hybreid cars. If the price of oil goes up, so does the price of electricty. Hybreads are decent for city driveing, but all the lititure I've read says there actualy at a disadvantage on freeway driveing. The generator/electric motor combo has trouble compeating with a set of gears. Plus, you have to hual around the useless-at-freeway-speeds batterys. Yuck. Over all, they might net you a few precentage points in the city, but you might lose a few precentage points on the freeway...

If the US was realy serious about cutting down on the amount of motor fuel it imports, amnd pollution, it would slap a much larger tax on all roadway fuels. Such a tax would leave rail, and ag. fuels reletivly untouched. You can damn well bet that it would cut the amout of fuel consumed in the US! It would also result in much higher efforts by Detroit to increase gas milage, and kill the SUV. And if the US wanted to solve 100% of it's citys traffic problems, it would STOP building freeways, in addition to the taxes. People would realize that w/o new/improved freeways, they could not make the suburban life style work. They would be forced to move BACK to the city, and cut the fuel used, AND pollution produced. This will never happen in our current political enviroment, so...

(Yep, I'm a US citizen, with ties to the domestic oil industry. I do have a bit of bias on the issue, but...)

Well, enjoy your shark!

So in colclusion, if the price goes over $2.00 the Lawn Ornamate is seeing the garage, on a semi-perment basis...

BC

Units said: " And if the US wanted to solve 100% of it's cites traffic problems, it would STOP building freeways, in addition to the taxes. People would realize that w/o new/improved freeways, they could not make the suburban life style work. They would be forced to move BACK to the city, and cut the fuel used, AND pollution produced. This will never happen in our current political enviroment, so..."

....That is THE most INANE statement I have seen from you EVER Units. I mean, YOu have some very interesting comments and help quite a few folks out every week on this same bat channel, but that last comment was just.....so much GREY DAVIS/HILLARY CLINTON- Liberal-Socialist crappiness that I had to say something.

So we are all huddled in a damn city with what? Bicycles? High rise rent housing?

"This will never happen in our current political environment,"

Right. It won't; we have quite a few very intelligent and well balanced people voting in this country, and well - intelligent and freedom-loving people would never let something like you describe...Happen.

Stop building freeways? Slap a tax on gas? (More of one) "Suburban life style?"

I am absolutley fuming.

I am really really disappointed in you Units. Bascially, you must have missed the reason we have government. Well, the hint is that it was never intended as a restriction, which it is now, and you propose it to increase in.

ViribusUnits

Relax, I'm not talking goverment restriction. Taxes to influance the behaver of man are as old as goverment.

I kinda curtelled the full explination. If you can't tell, I'm not a fan of suburbs. It doesn't have the night life of an honest to goodness city, nore the space of acutal rual liveing. The engineer in me just marvals at the wastefulness.

Suburbes are made possible by the ability of people to commute, useing freeways, to and from their city jobs. This "daily driveing" uses gas, space, and energy. (not to mention time...) Because suburbs are so spread out, public transport will never make sense for them. A traditional city night life, or traditional window shops also don't make sence. Thus the invention of the mall, and the freeway.

If you remove the 5 lane free way between the suburb and the city, the suburbs are no longer a viable alternitive. People now have a choice, live in the city, force the city represenitives to do their job, and make the city a nice place to live, or put up with a long, wasteful, hellish commute. Thats a no brainer. Their tax money would also give the citys a chance to make it work. This is entirly unlike the "high class flight" that is leaveing many citys short on funds.

In a high rise setting, public transportation actualy makes sence!!! In fact, it can even be quicker than a car. Bicycles my ***! Try a sub way, or a elevated trainway. Try sidewalks, subwalks, and skywalks. Heck, you could even try a trolly system if you liked.

There is not reduction of liveing space, becuase the buildings are built up. Who said anything about renting? You can buy square footage in a building same as you can buy square footage of land. You'll pay the same maintance bill, the same electric bill, and the same gas bill, just like you had a house. When you want to leave, you can sell the thing, same as a house. The diffrence between high class buildings, and low class building is comperable to the diffrence between high class homes, and low class homes.

Now, what to do with that gas tax money. Personaly, I'd say use it to abolish the income tax system... Or maybe aboish the social security tax... What to do with the extra highway money? Use it to build the interstate system to a autoban style, maybe? Personaly, I'd prefer the goverment to end it's depression era subsidys, get it's "tempary" World War I hands off my pocket book, and quite being stupid. It drives me nuts that they tax me twice. Once when I get the money, once when I spend it!?!?!?! What the heck!!! Why not, just when I spend it?

In the process, the total miles driven will go down. The oil consumed as a fuel will go down, reduceing the amount needed to be imported. It would also reduce the amount of emission produced. People's disposible income would now go into say, entertainment, or other goods, or services.

See, it's not so crazy, no (new) restrictions. The goverment just finds a diffrent way to get their money. Lets face it, they're gonna get it anyways. And they find a new way to spend it. Is that such a hard concept?

Nicole

Brendan:

We tried not to make this a political thread! I'm not saying "Viribus is right", but we really don't want to get into (republican) ideologies here. We are all entitled to our own opinions - that's OK.

Mine are different from both Viribus' and yours. I hope that's OK, too.

All I can do is encourage people to think and discuss freely, and travel the world to get exposed to different things and view points. You never know what you will find, and often you find things working that you would never have expected to work.

I have to thank my parents for exposing me to different places and cultures as their means allowed. Travel has given me a very different perspective on many things in life, including language, money, health, and the importance of the various kinds of transportation (note the word "various"). There are lots of places I have not been to, yet, but I hope I will be able to keep broadening my horizon as long as I live.

It takes an open mind, though. The moment you assume that things have to be a certain way and no other way, you stop learning. We all - including myself - fall into this trap at times. Just don't get stuck in there!

Viribus:

The cost of electricity is irrelevant for hybrids, as they create their own. In terms of diesel - Europe has an improved formula of diesel which we don't get here in the US, yet. Once we do, the turbo diesels will be very clean. In fact, Peugeot turbo diesels use a special combination of cat and filter that emits all particles from the exhaust. Every now and then the filter burns all the particles off cleanly, with the help of an additive. Other turbo diesels have very efficient high pressure direct injection systems and cats that also make them very clean.

Don't judge on something you haven't seen - a Ford F250 hardly represents today's state of the art in diesel technology. Most of the modern European turbo diesels sound and act like a gasoline engine - no waiting before starting the engine, no vibrations, slightly lower tone, and a lesser rpm bandwith, but 1 1/2 times the torque. A gasoline driven car with the same horse power has no chance against one of these...

In fact, I think the time has come for Porsche to offer a turbo diesel in the Cayenne. Yes, I thin the Cayenne will be the first Porsche to feature a diesel engine. Not your ol' truck style, but maybe a sporty one based on VWs V10 from the Touareg. Guzzling 10mpg in the turbo version, the Cayenne is not going to get much acceptance in Europe. With a 25mpg sporty turbo diesel, that might be different.

Hey, when someone flashes his ights at you on the Autobahn at 150mph, it could well be a Mercedes, BMW or Audi turbo diesel. Why not a Cayenne?

Nicole

Here you can compare gas prices across the US:
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/gasprices/index.html" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/gasprices/index.html</a>

Normy

Nicole is right about the diesels in Europe, VU. They are far nicer than what is currently on offer in the US!

-We in the US are sold high-sulfur diesel fuel. This is incompatible with the diesel injection pumps used on cars in Europe, but the standards for diesel fuel will supposedly change this year, and you can count on a flood of diesels from across the pond-

These diesels are catalyzed, and do not emit the clouds of smoke typical of American diesels. In fact, they have an odd "watery" smell, and other than a little more noise at idle, are smooth and very powerful. Me and my girlfriend drove from Brussels to Antwerp last year in her diesel Citroen, at an average speed of 160 km/h [she drives faster than I do!!!], and the 3100 lb automatic transmission car achieved about 45 miles per gallon while doing it.

As to your ruminations on suburbia, I kind of agree. In Orlando, the sprawl is disgusting, and Jeb Bush must be in the developer's pockets because it seems like every day they are draining wetlands in order to build a new subdivision. It sucks, and it would be nice to live in the downtown area by Lake Eola where I could walk to clubs and the grocery store like I do in Europe, but this is just not possible, and simply removing or not building roads will not fix the problem- it will only cause headaches! What's more, the notion of government "fixing" problems via taxation is horrid in my viewpoint. I can understand regulation aimed at increased fuel efficiency, which will force lower fuel consumption overall, but making everyone pay more in order to force a few to be more careful about their use of resources is a bit illogical [again, in my viewpoint].

<img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" />

Right now, I'm just interested in fixing my leaky steering rack- <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Normy!
'85 S2 5 Speed

Nicole

Normy: I did not mean to make this into a public transportation thread, but I feel the urge to add some of my personal experiences:

Well, in my home town (Stuttgart, for those of you who don't know, yet) I was able to watch traffic congestion become an absolute nightmare over the years, with no space to build new or wider roads. The alternative was to modernize and accelerate the public transportation systems, which of course are highly subsidized by tax money.

Wait, before you shriek about the word "public" and "tax" - my experiences with it are quite positive:

When I visit Germany, most of the time there is some car at my disposal. However, if I want to go the 12 miles from my Dad's house to downtown Stuttgart, I would be stupid beyond belief, if I chose the car for anything but hauling heavy stuff.

Instead, I would walk 10 minutes to the light rail station, buy a ticket for around $2 one way, and wait no longer than 12 minutes, while enjoying the art on display at the station. Then I ride in a super modern, quiet and comfortable street car directly to the inner city. This whole process takes about as long as driving an automobile and finding parking in a parking garage (about $2-3 per hour). During rush hour, the light rail is almost twice as fast.

I don't have to worry about where to park, tickets, whether someone scratches up my vehicle, getting (and paying for) gas, etc. I just pay my little fee and be done with it. The car serves well for trips in the suburbs or rural areas. But in an inner city, it's more of a pain than anything...

The other interesting thing is that my Dad's house is closer to Stuttgart Airport than to the downtown railway station. However, if I fly into Munich or Frankfurt, it would be faster for me to take the ICE (fast train, going up to 155mph) and street car to get home, partially because of the long stopovers and security checks at the airports. The downside is to get the luggage transferred from air to train to light rail and then the 10 minute walk home. This falls under the category of "hauling stuff", where I like to be picked up at the airport or train station.

Nevertheless, riding the ICE train is phantastic! It's like riding a luxurious plane, only that you can walk around more easily. It's cheaper than operating a car, stress-less, quiet and rides soo smooth! The best alternative, in my opinion, when you travel from city center to city center, or from and to places that have good light rail connections to major city train stations.

Believe me, there are stil enough opportunities to enjoy a nice car. The car is just not ideal for everyting. You learn to be more selective, choose what's best for the situation. This is not about restsrictions, this is about having suitable alternatives.

Remember: In an area as densely populated as major cities, ther is often no room (or air) to accommodate more traffic! But if everyone insists on driving, nobody gets anywhere.

Especially in places that are developing fast, we need to think ahead of time, how to manage the traffic. The Bay Area today is much like Stuttgart was 15 years ago - no space for roads left. During the dot.com boom it was nearly impossible to get anywhere - now we have some temporary relief, but not for long.

The alternatives: Yucky BART and busses, the latter of which are loud, ride like a truck and break down frequently - that's not what poeple would consider a tempting alternative. But that's what we think of when we hear "public transportation".

We are dealing with the old chicken and egg question: Who needs to be there first: A good public transportation system, or people who are willing to use it. There is an old saying in German: "The farmer isn't going to eat what he isn't familiar with". As long as people can't see and try out a good public transportation system, they are not going to want or use one.

As yucky as BART is, I'm glad it's there, and I like to use it to go to the city. And I'm glad they talk about expanding it. But that's only possible, if we (the community), and the government (who collects our taxes) make this happen. This is not about "me" or "I", not about democratic or republican - this is about "us" - all of us who waste our time in congested traffic.

Think about it one last time: If you have a one-hour commute each way, you spend two hours (or 8.3%) of each day in your car. Add this up over the course of a year (weekdays minus vacation and holidays), and you spend two full weeks in your car! Over the course of 40 years (probably the average work life), you spend over 1 1/2 years in your car. Would you want to give up 1 1/2 years of your life for commuting? I wouldn't!

Think about lost productivity, too! How much money could you make in 1 1/2 years?

Thank god I don't have to commute at all these days. Just from the bedroom to my office. About 20 steps. But it might not always stay that way...

BC

I will refrain from a full retort. Except to say to my wonderful 928 comrade NICOLE (See, I spell it right sometimes), that I have travelled extensively. England, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic, and I was based in Austria. I took the train. I saw the roads and wished that I was on them. In Fact, I took a train from Salzburg to Stoke-on-Trent England (well, a hover craft in the middle). It took me 24 hours.

Bitte nehmen Sie nicht an, daß ich irgendein dummer Amerikaner bin gerade weil meine politische Ideologie sehr konservativ ist, die gekümmerte Freiheit und Anti- JEDE MÖGLICHE Steuer.

ViribusUnits

Sorry folks, suburbs realy annoy me.

Hybrids are in diffrent flavors. One uses just a internal combustion engine, and a battery/generater/electric motor set up. The only advantage of the system is that the engine always runs at optimun power, and you don't need to have "extra" capasity for acceleration. This allows the designers to get away with a smaller engine, and keep it in it's most efficent operating band. Unforchantly, cruseing down the highway, you still have to haul the batterys around, and the generator/motor combo isn't typicaly as efficent as a transmittion.

The other flavor of hybread I'm fimier with is an electric car, with a internal combusion powered generater. You recharge it overnight, just like an electric car. You drive around down, same as an electric car. When you hit the free way, the generator starts up, and you have the same advantages as the previous flavor. Unforchantly, now you still have to haul around the generator, and the the batterys. The generator/motor combo isn't as efficent as a transmittion, but...

Like I said, around city driveing, you'll have an advantage. Freeway driveing, same or worse off. Oh well, right?

I know the International engine in the F-250 ain't exactly state-of-the-art! Gee wiz, give me some credit! Personaly, I can't wait till the electric controled desile engines start comeing out.

The problem with a desile is that it is VERY difficult to keep the combustion chamber temps down, through out the chamber. By the nature of the engine, when the fuel is first injected, the combustion temps of the edges of the flame are enough to create the NO emmisions. Desiles as a whole don't realy produce that much hydrocarbon emisions. This is because they are running in a lean condition at all times, except for WOT. Because of this, they tend to have trouble getting enough heat to a catylitic converter, to get it to get rid of the NO.

I know this was true some years ago, I don't know if it is anymore, but apperently the laws in Europe are/were designed to stop CO, CO2, and hydrocarbon emissions. They worryed less about NOX. In the US, the reverse was/is true.

Ain't nothing perfect!

tdelarm

“MY GOD MAGNUM” <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

I had to grab myself tonight after work for a reality check stemming for ‘PETROL STICKER SHOCK” and once I realized it hurt… <img border="0" alt="[crying]" title="" src="graemlins/crying.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[ouch]" title="" src="graemlins/c.gif" /> I let go of myself and filled up cuz what’s a guy to do

Just warning you so you know what to expect after you’ve had your cup of morning coffee <img border="0" alt="[oops]" title="" src="graemlins/oops.gif" /> And all this after Saddam still told Dan Rather he promised not to blow up his own oil fields <img border="0" alt="[nono]" title="" src="graemlins/nono.gif" />

Tim Delarm
<img border="0" alt="[icon107]" title="" src="graemlins/icon107.gif" />

Trip..

I just stumbled onto this thread and it made me chuckle when I saw the OP's question... Of course, I just paid $4.59 for a gallon of 92 gasahol swill.