Suburban Avenger Monster Trucks?

Where can I get one of those? I want it tricked out too.

Seriously, just the name kicks ass. I really want one, even if it only gets 5 MPG.

With SUVs being an obvious target, it is easy to miss the arguably more significant user of gas in our society, namely the long-distance commuter. With people living further and further away from their places of work, they're using a ton of friggin gas even with a 40mpg hybrid. I drive a 13mpg truck and use far less gas than a majority of my coworkers b/c i've actually chosen to live near work.

SUVs will always be the focus of gas consumption discussions, but a lot of people are sliding under the eco-terrorist radar.

The only person ever to accomplish anything in the Mideast by "jawboning" was Samson.

the problem is more the demand for and a lack of gasoline. There have been no new refineries built in the US in 20+ years because the enviros have made it so difficult through red tape that there is no viable economic reason for companies to build one. Combined with the fact that refineries have to produce some 30+ different blends of gasoline based on where in the country the gasoline is being shipped and the time of year.

Don't forget the real issue is no refineries built in the US in 30 years and the impossiblity of starting new wells anywhere, including ANWR.

Blame the enviros. The freaking out about SUV's is a smoke screen. 30 years ago, "compact" cars got worse milage than alot of these SUV's.

We sold our Expedition last year and bought a Camry. Not cause I have any problems with people who want em, we just didn't need it anymore and I got tired of feeding the beast.

I think SUV-haters have a point, but like most things in life, how you try to make your point with me will have a huge impact on whether I feel like listening.

My next truck:

http://www.f650pickups.com/page0003.html

My wife and I take transit to work every day - and haul out the mid-sized SUV for weekends - hauling around skis, bikes, tents and other fun stuff. And I pay a lot to fill it up. If I had to commute to work, though I would probably get a little civic or prius.

Schoolbuses: Gas guzzlers
Those Tanks They Use for Recyling: Major gas guzzlers
That Plastic Keyboard you are Typing on Right Now: Plastic is made from Oil.
The Computer you are Using: Boatloads of electricity. Needs coal. Reduces available oil.
Vaseline: Petrolium by product. Blame perverts.
Percentage of oil used in powering SUV's (pulled from my ass): 8%

Oh, and Ace - my wife's 4000 lb SUV holds my 3 most precious items in the world. My wife and 2 daughters. I don't care what it costs to fuel that steel cage with tires as it does a better job at protecting them against crashes.

Me? 1995 Wrangler with a hopped up engine that I use to drive 35 miles to work (70 a day). Hate me instead of my wife, ok?

Come on Ace!

Surely you're not buying into that all-too-simple concept that owning an SUV makes you complicit in any area of international finance / politics.

It is absurd to think that Americans who have the means to buy an SUV (or mos cars) look at the oil price (past, present, or future) as anything more than ONE MORE factor in their purchasing decision. Others might be: work related, family related, status related, or safety related.

Don't be simplistic - any consumer rationalizes their purchasing decision in any number of ways. If Americans are wealthy enough to turn up their noses at gas prices, even if only in the short term, then more power to them.

I would say, from a foreign policy perspective, that if we are relying on Mr. Smith of 123 Maple Lane to make a particular buying decision in lieu of a coherent foreign policy then we have already ceded the problem. The solution is not to then wait for Mr. Smith to get on board with the desired foreign policy, but rather to get moving on a cohesive foreign policy.

DDG

You can blame the enviros for part of the cost, but not the scarcity of oil. America's oil peaked in the 1970s and has declined since, global production is supposed to peak in 2008-10 and decline after that. Add the rise of China and soon India. China is busy locking up energy reserves in Venezuela, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, Canada - oil formerly bound for the USA - to fuel it's monster economy and rapidly expanding military.

We had a challenge from the Japanese in the 80's we beat back through innovation, and Reagans trade quotas on auto, steel, advanced machinery imports, and also as the fully employed Japan's labor force's costs exceeded ours in the 80s.

Today, the hourly manufacturing rate inc. benefits, in dollars, for Japanese labor is 40.66, USA is 36.72.

The problem is the hourly rate in China is still only 1.67. And they have 200 million more Chinese unemployed or grossly underemployed workers as a reserve to keep costs low until American wages fall to match or we erect protection. Unlike Reagan, Bush will not act to protect any American job as long as his rich buds get richer from imports & illegal alien labor.

We give China 170 billion a year in trade surpluses. That allows them to buy up not just oil barrels and jack up global prices, but money to lock up oilfields globally for China's use only.

Count on oil being at this price or higher forever.

All the oil in Anwar is a drop in the bucket. We can't drill costs lower. Oil is a global commodity, and price reflects global supply and demand.

Besides the rise of China, the price of oil now includes a 8-15 dollar "risk premium" due to terrorists, the Mullahs of Iran, African instability, Chavez, Mexican instability, Iraq War, and chances of insurrection against ME nations.

None of that is going away.

Get used to it. The days of cheap oil are over, and China's continued rise to eventually surpass America with American elites eager to bring that day on is a major reason.

(Sigh)

I had hoped not to break this out, but I've already addressed all these issues.

Here's but a taste:
1: 'Seasonal Blends' It's 'Enviro friendly' to create gasoline that burns at it's best under certain driving conditions. Supposedly. Yet, it does cause supply restrictions, given point 2, which is a limited refining capacity. Re-tooling this limited capacity to create these blends every few months, costs the refineries millions every year. And they actually have to stop making gas while the production line is shifted to the new blending, thus making supply/demand even worse. Where do you think that cost difference goes? Thank you, un-American left for forcing this enviro-wacko nonsense on us. If the Democrats were really serious about lowering the costs of fuel, don't you think we'd see them eliminate this enviro-wacko madness?

2: Limited refining capacity: We have not built one new refinery since 1976.Our current systems are running at around 95%, despite the gyrations of the different blends we're forcing though every few months... see point 1. Worse, we're losing some of the refineries we now have online because they can't deal with the regulatory load placed on them in the name of the 'environment', and the outrageous taxation on the investors in those companies and the companies themselves, al of whom make such systems possible. Thank you, un-American left for forcing this enviro-wacko nonsense on us. If the Democrats were really serious about the cost of gas and heating oil, don't you think they'd get serious about eliminating the mountain of red tape and impediments we're up against in the task of increasing our refining capacity?

3: World demand: The third world, along with places like China, for example, are seeing their energy demands increase. It's interesting to note that as such they're not working under the same environmental regulations nightmare we are here in the states and thus their gas prices are far cheaper. Wonder why manufacturing jobs are moving to China, and what is responsible for such shifts? The cost of energy being lower there is a large chunk of the deal. Thank you, un-American left for forcing this enviro-wacko nonsense on us. If the Democrats were serious about the cost of fuel, don't you think they'd call for our *adding* to the world supply? Which is a nice tie-in to;

4: Lack of domestic drilling: We have oil here in the US; lots of it, but the usual suspects won't let us drill for it; ANWR, for example would be turning out about a million barrels a day. Think that'd help? Remember, Bill Clinton vetoed drilling there, and the Democrats in Congress blocked the idea when Mr. Bush re-proposed it more recently as a part of his energy bill. Thank you, un-American left for forcing this enviro-wacko nonsense on us. If the Democrats were serious on this topic, don't you think they'd be willing to allow us to drill for our own oil?

5: Taxes: Not only are we dealing with tax levels amounting to as much as 70 cents per gallon in many states, particularly in the left-leaning north eastern states, but we're also paying a very heavy tax burden when is placed on the oil companies, and everyone in the delivery process... all of which adds to the cost you and I pay at the pump.... Because they pass it along as a cost of doing business. If the Democrats were really serious about lowering the costs, don't you think they'd lower the taxes both on the oil companies and direct taxation on the buyers at the pump.. Both of which come out of your wallet?

6: The growing world economy; More or less a good tie-in to point 3... As the World economy recovers from Clinton, we're seeing increasing demands and somewhat shorter supply. This is normal in an economic growth pattern. But this wouldn't be a problem, but rather a blessing, had the rest of the factors not been in place. And all the rest of the factors are directly attributable to the left.

Remember that when you go to the pump, gang. You're paying for the snail darter. Doesn't it feel good?

Oh, sure... Kerry claims he has a solution... He now wants to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Funny; he didn't agree with President Clinton's doing that, back in 2000, when the situation was more serious than it is now. He said at the time, the SPR was for emergencies, not countering market flux. Wonder why the change of mind? Could his running for office now, combined with Bill Clinton being a Democrat have anything to do with it, I wonder?

Trying to blame Mr. Bush for the factors I've listed is utter nonsense of a quality you can only find among Democrats, or among second graders trying to talk their way out of a homework assignment. As for you, you need to remember how Kerry pandered on the issue come November.

I'll close this by quoting Boortz:
"So when you pull up to the pump this week and see that you're paying almost $2.50 for a gallon of gas, don't blame George Bush....don't blame the oil companies....and don't blame the gas station. Blame your friendly neighborhood environmental leftist who won't allow any new refineries to be built and opposes oil exploration in this country at every turn. "

Iraq has the cheapest, best quality oil in the world and it's got the most of it as well. Pre-Gulf War, Iraq pumped 3.5 million bpd. Now it's 2.0.

Just wait a year, and when Iraq's production doubles, gas prices will be under $2/gallon.

But we definitely need to simplify the refining requirements. That 30-different-kinds-of-blend shit is just plain STOOPID.

The new ANWR oil is significant, too. Don't let the dipshits tell you otherwise. Right now the US produces less than 9 million bpd. An extra million bpd of US oil is gonna keep $40 million a day out of the Middle East. And that's a good thing.

jawbone, shmawbone - Bush has got a Man-Date:

dang contraption stripped the image...

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050425/capt.txgh20404251659.bush_saudi_arabia_txgh204.jpg

Am I the only one that reads "...to regulate commerce... among the several states" as "to regulate interstate commerce"? I mean, clearly the 31-flavors-of-gas issue begs for a Federal regulating body. Normally, I'd recoil at the thought of suggesting more Fed agencies, but it seems that this one would be pretty easy to put to bed.

Benefits:

It would make the enviro-nutjobs furious. Point.

It would make the industry happy. Point.

It would enhance competition. Point.

It would lower the prices. Ten points.

Such a measure would even be easy to pass -- if anybody gives you shit, make accepting federal standards for the One Fuel "voluntary", as a condition for recieving highway funds. Hello, 50-state compliance. Any takers?

You can have my SUV...

when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

I'm pretty much with Ace on this one. While I would never want an SUV for myself, I have a problem with prohibiting others from wasting their money on such vehicles. But don't cry to me about gas prices! The free market determines the price, and there is no civil right to cheap gas. And you cannot blame the leftists for the laws of supply and demand. As a conservative, I actually do care about conserving natural resources. It's clear that eventually, oil will become scarce, and we'll have to adapt somehow. There is nothing nobel about wasting gas!

I would like to see more government investment into developing alternative sources of energy. To me, it's simply a matter of national security.

I don't generally criticize others for driving gas guzzlers, but really, is there any bigger group of assholes than these Hummer driving fucks?

Other than farmers, I can't imagine who really needs these things. These idiots are using what is essentially a military transport to haul their kids to suburban soccer games.

I don't complain about the price of gas. I don't own a car. I live two blocks from work so I walk there.

It sucks.

Warden, the current "Hummer" is just a riced-up Tahoe. Same chassis, different body. Nothing special about it at all. It's a Tahoe.

The Hum-V is no longer in civilian production IIRC.

And I'll pay my $50 per tank for my Exploder and like it, thankyouverymuch.

Hob, we got the V-8 exploder back when gas was 88 cents a gallon in OK.

And now it's 2.58.

Ouch.

D'oh! I at April'd!

At least it was not over a significant, thoughtful, or funny post.

I traded in my old 6 cyl. Olds for my much newer 4 cyl. Rav4. I'm getting the same if not better mileage than before. But I'm an asshole for having an SUV? And why do those overpowered sportscar gashog / nutbag drivers always get a pass in these discussions?

Sorry, but I can't see how the lack of refineries and the stupidity of envirothugs can be used to justify driving a gas guzzler (aka funding Arabs who hate us)--you're just adding to the problem. Is it purely out of spite, or an attempt at relieving your conscience?
I can understand the safety issue of SUVs, but y'know, there ARE regular cars that are just as safe, sometimes more so.

Hobgoblin, where in the world are you able to fill an Explorer for only $50 a tank? Must be nice. I'm paying that for my Volvo, although probably a lot less often.

How about the need for some loading and or towing capacity?

I drive a GMC Safari...(You might know it better as a Chevy Astro... there's pics of it just off my blog page.)

You wouldn't believe how many idiots figure I'm being wasteful because I pack my wife, our two kids the dog and all their stff into a mini-van, that tows a trailer.

Who in the bleeding hell are THEY to decide what is and is not wasteful, for me and mine?