By on September 13, 2016

pumping gas

Automakers can expect a favorable environment for lucrative truck and SUV sales well into next year, as the right conditions come together for a continued oil glut. That heralds lower prices at the pump, less painful driving, and less scrutiny of EPA mileage figures on Monroney stickers.

Oil supply and inventories are rising, even as demand falls off sharply, while overseas interests are conspiring to keep prices down — and in their favor.

According to Reuters, the International Energy Agency issued a prediction today of an oversupplied crude oil market, with “glut” conditions lasting until at least the middle of next year.

The increase in oil consumption predicted by the IEA earlier this year hasn’t panned out. The agency has erased 300,000 barrels per day from its third quarter 2016 consumption growth estimates, and cut the annual outlook by 100,000 bpd. The growth forecast for next year calls for a further decrease in demand — 1.2 million bpd, compared to 2016’s 1.3 million.

This comes a day after a report by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) showing a record high oil inventory of 3.111 billion barrels. Global production is still expanding, the report claims.

Lower gas prices are one factor affecting the sale of thirsty trucks and SUVs, which automakers can’t build enough of. It poses a problem for environmental regulators, as higher gas prices help nudge average fuel economy upwards.

Dreams of a continuing cheap gas fantasyland could come crashing down when OPEC meets later this month, but analysts don’t expect a production cut. Middle Eastern oil producers can’t allow oil prices to rise too much, lest they spur U.S. production.

A Wall Street Journal report last week claims the oil cartel will try and keep prices in the $50-$60 a barrel range in the long term, lower than they initially hoped for.

This is concerning news for the looming crop of cheaper electric vehicles, though all of the automakers behind the EVs — with the exception of Tesla — are heavily invested in the SUV and crossover game. Don’t expect too many tears, as that’s where the money lies.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

109 Comments on “Truck, SUV Owners Rejoice as Forecasters Predict a Lengthy Oil Glut...”


  • avatar
    celebrity208

    Don’t forget, boat owners will celebrate this as well. Try 2MPG on for size! Woot woot.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Or those giant bus RVs, like with a Ford V-10 or a large diesel. I can’t imagine they see double digit MPG often, if at all.

    • 0 avatar
      SSJeep

      I think my last boat was about 2MPG. Seriously – it had a 454 with a 4 barrel carburetor. At WOT, it was not uncommon to use 23 gallons per hour and end up with a 225.00 fill up. I miss that boat… and I dont.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Whoooooooooooo! ‘Merica.

    Meanwhile our truck and SUVs get MPG and have horsepower that would have made the owner of a 1990s Explorer or a 1996 Tahoe green with envy. (Especially if you drove all of them at 80 mph for several hours on the interstate.)

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      “Meanwhile our truck and SUVs get MPG and have horsepower that would have made the owner of a 1990s Explorer or a 1996 Tahoe green with envy.”

      Right, but of course newer technology, such as transmissions with more than three-four gears, is bad and we should shy away from it. Doesn’t matter if it works most of the time with a some exceptions, progress is bad. Who cares if we have much better ratios of MPG vs. HP? So what if a comfortable midsize car gets the same or better MPG as a wheezing sub-100hp stripped-down econo box from just a couple decades ago?

      Because no body has ever made an unreliable 4 speed automatic, obviously every stumble and misstep (ZF 9HP, Ford DCT, Nissan’s laggy, sometimes unreliable, and droan-inducing CVT) since is they deviated from absolute perfection.

      /toung-in-cheek rant

      • 0 avatar
        blppt

        I may be in “old man yells at cloud mode”, but 8+ gears in a transmission for a car that will likely spend its entire life under 85mph seems like wayyyy to many ratios. Damn you young whippersnappers and yer modern newfangled technology!!!

        Seriously though, I think my 6 speed transmission has too many gears—and the hunting is the thing that bothers me the most—I usually end up switching to sport mode and holding gears myself. Can only imagine the nightmare of a 9 speed auto with a torqueless wonder NA 4 cylinder in a pudgy vehicle. (Jeep, I’m looking at you). Shudder.

      • 0 avatar
        garuda

        And when spelling was still taught in school.

        Tongue not in cheek

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        The problem with the ZF 9HP is the lag as the dog clutches engage and disengage, not the number of gear ratios. The ZF 8HP is a great transmission with a variant strong enough to handle the Hellcat.

        • 0 avatar
          blppt

          The “too many ratios” complaint was really a separate thing–it even applies to my *mere* 6 speed transmission. I’d imagine low torque NA 4 cylinders in heavy cars have to do quite a bit of gear hunting with 7+ gears no matter how well the clutches actuate.

          The ZF 9 speed, as you said, has other issues that lend to annoyance rather than simple gear hunting.

        • 0 avatar
          SSJeep

          I have heard from several people that have rough-shifting and shift latency issues with the ZF 8-speed as well.

          Whereas the 4-speed in my Avalanche many years ago didn’t have any problems at all, and was rather pleasant to drive.

      • 0 avatar
        SP

        Doubly humorous because of the AX4N in your user name.

        I believe that a deep affection for the Ford Vulcan engine and the associated transaxle could only reside in a very … unique person.

        But I can’t make my family and friends like my vehicle choices, either. They just do get it or don’t get it, and most of them don’t get it. :)

  • avatar
    Jimal

    I took a bit of a risk when I bought a 2009 Pontiac G8, complete with 6 liters of LS goodness, a couple weeks ago. This makes me happy.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Peak oil is a lie.

    CAFE and the mfrs/consumers are on a collision course.

    • 0 avatar
      kvndoom

      Are you saying that there’s an infinite supply of oil and it renews itself? No one knows when a decline will come because no one knows how much is out there.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        kvndoom – all indications are that oil is a finite resource. The question is how much is there. We have 2 main theories i.e biogenic theory (dead dinosaurs) and abiogenic theory (not biologically based). Some abiogenic oil has been found but not enough to be commercial. Even if oil is “renewable”, timelines for renewal make it functionally finite. No business runs on a thousand year timeline.

        • 0 avatar
          jimbob457

          Actually, any normal economic analysis of any mining industry is based on the balance between resource depletion and technological progress. The uneducated focus on the former (which even the merest fool can visualize) and ignore the latter.

          Fracking has provided an unexpected boost to technological progress. It has already revolutionized the Texas natural gas business. It is in the process of doing the same for Texas crude oil production. Look at a web of 5,000 foot laterals in the Permian Basin if you need a clue.

          After Texas the sky is the limit looking worldwide. Coober Pedy?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            We won’t be using much more oil after we frack enough to poison all the potable water, and then die.

            So there’s that.

          • 0 avatar
            jimbob457

            The main as yet unsolved technical problem is where to inject waste water so as not to cause earthquakes. IMO it is a classic solvable geologic and engineering problem.

            We shall see.

    • 0 avatar
      319583076

      All three of you might enjoy reading this short note:

      http://www.pnas.org/content/69/12/3832

      “Notes on ‘Doomsday Models\'” by Robert Solow

      The central argument is salient to this discussion.

      Furthermore, Hubbert’s theory is remarkable for it’s simplicity more than anything else. The fact that additional reserves have appeared coupled with technological advances has increased the horizon on peak oil.

      I support Burt Rutan’s perspective that we should maximize production and sell, sell, sell using the profits to fund R&D on replacement technologies. Of course, the masters of the universe collect the profits and usually they choose to keep them to fund extravagant lifestyles instead.

      Bringing me to my concluding point, captured in Thucydides “History of the Peloponnesian War” – “The strong do as they choose while the weak accept what they must.”

      • 0 avatar
        jimbob457

        You can further your education (past 1930 or so) by looking up work of SF Ivanhoe and field size distribution. Good luck.

        • 0 avatar
          319583076

          Hubbert’s report was published in 1956, Solow’s note was published in 1972. I’ll grant that Thucydides is quite a bit older than both, but I have no idea where you came up with 1930.

          BTW, it’s L. F. Ivanhoe.

          Maybe wish yourself some luck…or, keep practicing your pedantry because practice makes perfect.

          • 0 avatar
            jimbob457

            How about from memory. It has been years since I was paid by a large oil company to reproduce the research of Hubbert and Ivanhoe.

            Hubbert’s data was from the Illinois Basin dating back to the 1930’s. All I can remember was that people referred to Ivanhoe as Bob.

            Citing Solow really is pedantry.

      • 0 avatar
        HeyILikemySaturnOK

        @ 319583076, I just wanted to say thanks for sharing the article.

        Clearly I am not a Nobel prize-winning economist, but I’m not sure the point he was making – that our models for predicting environmental catastrophe are flawed because they do not account for changes in societal behavior, technology, etc – is still valid. This write-up was published over 40 years ago and it seems like many of the projection models we have now do account for those things, at least as much as they can.

        • 0 avatar
          319583076

          Name one model that accounts for the factors you listed and makes accurate, repeatable forecasts more than 5 years ahead (Solow’s threshold in 1972) and I’ll believe you.

          Differential equations provide the basis for most of these models and while technology allows us to compute solutions much faster today, the fundamental constraints of the mathematics and modeling haven’t changed.

          I’d encourage you to check out “The Art of Modeling Dynamic Systems: Forecasting for Chaos, Randomness and Determinism” by Foster Morrison if you’re inclined. It’s a cheap, good, and thorough introduction to the applicability and constraints of various mathematical techniques in applied dynamic systems modeling.

          • 0 avatar
            mike9o

            Moore’s Law for computer power doubling every other year. Accurate since 1975.

          • 0 avatar
            HeyILikemySaturnOK

            Thanks, I might have to check that out.

          • 0 avatar
            319583076

            @ HeyILikemySaturnOK

            http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/1985/proceed/morri565.pdf

            Is a free taste of Morrison. Some of the limitations and constraints I alluded to are mentioned in this paper. I think the arguments hold for the layman, but some familiarity with Differential Equations and Linear Algebra allows you to follow his examples.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      In the decades preceding highly publicized Peak Oil predictions, oil cost less than half of what it does today. Saudi was struggling mightily to keep Opec disciplined enough to keep prices to a target of around $28/barrel.

      Most of the oil industry insiders who were talking Peak Oil, underestimated the efficiency of frackers and other forms of tertiary recovery. But, compared to the big, easy fields of Arabia, or even the big deep sea fields in the North Sea and Gulf, fracking is still expensive and resource intensive.

      Somewhat interestingly, were it not for Opec keeping pre “Peak traditional production” prices well above a fully free market equilibrium, the price ramp accomplishing the primary recovery peak, would have been much more obvious and destabilizing.

      • 0 avatar
        jimbob457

        Sure. Peak oil was utter B.S. from existing sellers promoting higher oil prices in the future for whatever reasons. I have seen the same foolishness since forever.

        By the way, with practice, fracking is only going to get cheaper. Right now, fracking in Texas, is pegging crude prices at about $50 per barrel. Maybe that will hold.

    • 0 avatar
      David "Piston Slap Yo Mama" Sanborn

      Peak oil aside, it should be left in the ground while we develop other sustainable energies for the human race. I don’t care if there’s an ocean of it – burning petroleum for energy is not sustainable. Global warming is as real as death and taxes. Gasoline & diesel should be taxed at rates that discourage their use with those funds going towards American R&D for their alternatives as well as general infrastructure. If this means $5 / gal gasoline or more, sign me up.

      On this argument I will always side with NASA. I’ll never understand how science became a partisan issue.

      • 0 avatar
        jimbob457

        Come on.

        Global warming is still up in the air. You can deny it (not at all defendable). You can spend lots of others money to stop it (too soon for that). Or, you can wait and see (the current consensus).

        Climate models are still only partially developed. Believing that the current models have it right is a game for the ‘expert fools’.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Except that waiting and doing nothing in the meantime will just make it worse.

          Are you saying you could come to a better conclusion given the same data?

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            I’d start by using all the available data, and not just the subset that supports my hypothesis.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Yeah. Todd knows a lot more about climate science than 97% of actual climate scientists. Obviously.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            I’ve traversed oceans without getting frozen into ice I built my career around denying the existence of, so maybe I know more about the climate than some climate “scientists” do.

          • 0 avatar
            jimbob457

            OK. You are in the humans amongst us who view this with an alarm camp.

            Some people who like warmer climates who live further south favor planetary warming.

            So what! What to do?

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            For “worse” to make any sort of sense when we are talking about variations of +- a few degrees, there would have to exist some sort of a priori ideal global temperature.

            As long as the oceans neither permanently boil nor freeze, squabbling over temperatures, is just a whole lot ado about nothing.

            In a more general sense, change is a much opportunity as it is threat. Just depends on whether one is a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty type.

            Or, more realistically and in practice, whether one is a any-excuse-to-meddle-in-the-lives-of-others-for-ones-own-profit-and-aggrandizement type.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Noone just leaves valuable resources in the ground. I wouldn’t personally mind, as the whole petro industry is pretty dirty and nasty, and I could probably live out the rest of my life in reasonable comfort even without it. As could, I assume you.

        But the two of us dropping out of the oil race, will just lower demand. Making oil an even cheaper and more attractive resource for those who are currently at the margin of even basic sustenance, allowing them to use what we forego.

        The only way for fossil fuels to be left in the ground, is to discover/develop an alternative that is, all across the world, sufficiently cheaper and more efficient that the still unrecovered oil out there, is simply uneconomical to do anything with.

        As good a test as any for whether we have reached that stage yet, is to look at all the world’s fighting forces. Once the Talibans swap their Hilux’ for Teslas, and ditto for the US and it’s fighter jets, we’re getting closer. Until then, the best we can hope for, is to burn what we do burn, as cleanly as possible. IOW, avoid trading a 10% decrease in harmless soda bubble emissions, for a manyfold increase is nastiness like Nox and soot.

        • 0 avatar
          David "Piston Slap Yo Mama" Sanborn

          stuki your fundamental point is if the 1st world uses less petroleum then the developing world will use more as it will be cheaper.

          The flaw in your logic is this: CO2 is THE climate change culprit, it’s fundamentally what comes out of your tailpipe. It isn’t scrubbed by catalysts and it can’t be minimized. It just “is”. The 1st world burns fuels with less Nox and soot, but the CO2 is there no matter how it’s burned, or who burns it.

  • avatar
    brettc

    So I guess fuel efficient cars will continue to sit on lots (looking at you,
    C-Maxes with over 140 days on Cargurus), which will hopefully be good for me once I get my buyback money.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    My what 8 years will do. 8 years ago economy was at a standstill, gas was $4, car companies were bankrupt, cash for clunkers was going on, and we wondered if we could ever drive anything bigger than a Pontiac Vibe (my car at the time) or be able to hold on to our homes. Now, gas is $2, no active wars thanks to foresight to keep us out of middle east conflicts, and oil is flowing inside and outside (thanks to new sources like Iran coming online). It is a beautiful time to have American iron, just traded the bimmer for a stingray to add to Mustang and Jeep collection. Thank-you Mr President.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      pmirp1 – it naive to assume that the USA is no longer engaged in war. The USA now runs on the doctrine of “the global battlefield”. It resorts to using Special Forces and/or CIA and/or Drones/missiles to engage its chosen “enemy” in ANY country. Obama’s administration ramped up this “war” despite public rhetoric about Guantanamo and human rights. Even USA citizens have been targeted and killed. The irony is this, Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional “expert”. The right has chastised Obama for being “soft on terror” when in actual fact he has been much more aggressive that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld era of government.

      • 0 avatar
        yamahog

        He’s been much more aggressive with things like drone strikes but on the domestic front, he’s really curtailed things like profiling Muslims and look at how well the Feds have kept tabs on the wife of the Gay Club shooter.

        That said, attorney generals from both administrations have revived much of the work of German Jurist Carl Schmitt – who wrote at length of a ‘sovereign’ or the person who decides when to suspend the rule of law.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          yamahog – there is a fine line between profiling and discrimination.
          Only a small fraction of “terrorist” activity in the USA has been carried out by Muslims. In Europe the numbers of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims is also small, less than 10% for both regions.
          How many crimes perpetrated against gays have been carried out by Christians?
          How about Christian terrorism in general?
          Zion Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. shooting, The 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing:Timothy McVeigh,The Ku Klux Klan all come immediately to mind as Christian motivated terrorist activity. .

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            The old Timothy McVeigh canard, he was a Christian so he must be a “Christian Terrorist” McVeigh hated the US government, his religion had nothing to do with it, he didn’t shout the Christian equivalent of “allahua akbar” while blowing up the Federal building. He was a terrorist but he as not a Christian terrorist.

            “How about Christian terrorism in general?”

            Give me one example of a Christian terrorist group carrying out terrorist acts in the name of Christ. And please spare me the IRA, that was a religious war between two sects, they didn’t attack other countries to conquer the “infidels”

          • 0 avatar
            garuda

            The conquistadors certainly terrorized a good hunk of the world. God, glory and gold. Conversion or death.
            Salem witch hunts was pursued because anything “unchristian” was witchcraft.
            Inquisition was also terrifying if you were not christian.
            The holocaust could not have been carried out without the explicit cooperation of churches.
            I volunteered at planned parenthood back a few years ago. We closed doors several times because christians started throwing rocks at our doors and windows. The optometrist next door’s car was also vandalized with an ephesians quote that death is coming to him. They threw rocks at the responding cop car, who promptly turned around and went back to the donut shop, never to be heard of again. Complaints were filed at the police station next day, where the case was closed 30 minutes later with insufficient evidence. There was also a girl who was going to see us but got recognized by one of the christians at which point they bashed the window of her car and dragged her out of it, then put on the ground and then they prayed over her while she was held down. She was crying loudly while they sang over her wails. Weird and sad. Do not tell me christians do not terrorize.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Tell me how many crimes HAVE been perpetuated by Christians this year? Compare that to Europe where over the summer we heard about a new ISIS terrorist attack daily up to the point the media started calling clear terrorist attacks office place disputes or some other ridiculous name when the attacker is well documented as yelling phrases such as “allah Akbar”.

            Christians do not commit attacks no where near the scale as what you allude to. McVeigh attack was not a Christian attack, he attacked people in a Christian church, a grade schooler could see the problem with that line of crap. Your only example is from 21 years ago.

            Please educate us on the number of Christian attacks on LGBT as well, the Catholic Church has taken in Gays for over a hundred years to help them from being persecuted in places where it was illegal to have that lifestyle, places such as Scotland and England in the 50s and 60s. The majority of christians do not show animosity towards gays. Compare that to Islam where a poll conducted in the U.K. found that 100% (how is that even possible?) of Muslims disapproved of the homosexual lifestyle. That is only the edge of the knife for that subject.

            https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
            https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

          • 0 avatar
            garuda

            The catholic church protecting gay people for over a hundred years? That is news to this catholic born and raised boy.
            http://europe.newsweek.com/swiss-gay-group-files-criminal-complaint-against-catholic-bishop-331393
            http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html
            Please read article 8 of persona humana written in 1975, which may have been more than 100 years ago in your maths.

            By quoting theguardian, im not sure if you are being funny. The guardian is so silly that im not sure that it was not created to parody theonion.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Trust me, I know the Guardian is a horrible source the only way I could go further left is to post something from the Washington Post, or possibly the next source I’m about to post, but the point is those that tend to discriminate Christianity while ignoring flaws with Islam that are so infinitely worse, tend to agree with said news sources, so why not use their own raw data. I’m in no way extremely religious, but common sense would show Christianity to tend to be more peaceful, was the crazy sh*t movements that happened in the 90s peaceful? Heck no, but they can’t hold a flame to the disgusting acts being committed in Europe today, Christian’s didn’t form rape gangs in England and rape 1400 children, christians didn’t kill/injure 100 people in Orlando, how about the Christian Genocide in the Middle East?
            Are certain Christians at fault for disgusting crimes against humanity- absolutely, but that pales in comparison to other religious motivated crimes happening today.

            http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/12/gay-clergy-catholic-church-vatican

          • 0 avatar
            garuda

            Hummer,
            What was the rape gangs in england that raped 1400. I’d like to know more about this.
            Here is why i will always have a hard time accepting that christianity is the more peaceful religion: when christians arrived with their god glory and gold quest in the new world, 50-70% of the native population died. And 90% became opressed by the priests. On a more personal basis, when the cristians arrived in the philippines, the native culture was systematically obliterated, the writng system ws purged and towns were burnt to the ground under a convert or die policy. Natives were excluded from education too. When muslims arrived in the south there was never a conversion or death movement, natives were thought to read arabic.
            Relatively peaceful still means extremely violent in my book.
            On the vanity fair article; are you suggesting that your proof that the catholic church has been protecting gays for over a hundred years was that the gay priests were protecting themselves and each other from the danger that other catholic straight priests? The logic confounds me, or more likely you didn’t read the vanity fair article. Funny logic though

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Just look up Rotherham rape gangs, that way you can pick from hundreds of sources of information.
            We’re talking about 2016, I and everyone else acknowledge that in the past Christians have persecuted those who refused to Convert. That’s known, if you want to talk about what religions have done over the past 2000+ years we’re going to be here for the next twenty years.
            Your not really defending against my allegations so much as your deflecting and trying to say Christians this that and the other, reminds me of this… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hbJInn7wF6M

            Look all religions have dirt if you go back, Christian terrorism is not a issue at this time, if it becomes one, we can tackle it.

            So all of my points still stand, and you failed to make any salient arguments but instead blabbered on about non-issues. Got it. Deflecting my points and returning with “well Christians killed someone 300 years ago” doesn’t chip away at what I said FYI.

            You have to read the catholic priest article between the lines, journalism doesn’t sell on hard facts.

          • 0 avatar
            garuda

            Hummer
            Those are indeed evil people, some happen to be probably Muslim. Although, by the looks of it, they have a probably christian accomplice too. Is the evil only coming from the muslim part of that vile group?

            How about another vile group of people, this well and fully “christian”.
            http://www.vice.com/print/the-bizarre-and-terrifying-propaganda-art-of-the-children-of-god-666

            http://www.exfamily.org

            My point is that some people are evil. And a lot of them use religion as an excuse to be evil. The flavor of religion used is inconsequential, they will find a reason to be evil.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      Whatever your political party preferences are, the fact is that the U.S. economy has improved steadily under the current President. The unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since before the real estate/banking bubble and crash, and the stock market has steadily increased to where it recently set new record highs.
      New car sales have been increasing pretty regularly, too. Times are much better now than they were under the previous administration. The numbers don’t lie.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        RHD – there has been an improvement in the USA economy over the past 8 years. Political leaders exert less of an influence on economies than their supporters give them credit for.

      • 0 avatar
        56BelAire

        “The numbers don’t lie”

        Sure they do. Unemployment rate 4.9%

        94,000,000 Americans not working. Care to do the math for me?

        Stock market high……Haha, it’s a totally fraudulent/casino market created by the Fed and 0% interest rates.

        Who will you blame when the current stock market bubble bursts, Bush?

        We sure don’t have to guess what political ideology you ascribe to. Do you have a pair of the Zeiss Z1 Blue Blinders like Hillary wears?

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          56BelAire,
          When economists measure how an economy is doing they look at growth, unemployment, inflation, asset values and income growth. By all of these metrics, the US economy is succeeding.

          If you are so committed to voting for Trump, that’s your business, but don’t lie about the economy to justify it.

        • 0 avatar
          garuda

          If we are going by simple numbers here you go:
          80-84 million below the age of 20. Another 35+ million above the age of 65. Only 94 million not working?

        • 0 avatar
          lon888

          “94,000,000 people not working”
          Uh, that’s like 1 in 4 in our entire population not working and since you’re obviously no math whiz that would equate to 25% not working.

          Whatever it is you are smoking, I’d sure like some.

          Your words are spoken like a real Trump/Fox News supporter.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            You’d have to be extremely left of center to watch fox anymore, they threw fairness out the window when they sent out Ailes packing, it’s a constant anti-Trump crapfest now. I mean not quite toilet low CNN, but without a doubt Fox no longer covers this election objectively, it’s a Hillary cheerleading squad.
            Cable news has officially gone the way of the newspaper, and it’s well time seeing how Wikileaks has proof to what we’ve all known for the past 30 years. That is the DNC pays for its coverage; I’m sure fox is loving the DNC cash now too.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Yep found one of yesterday’s leaks showing them colluding with all the stations including Fox on what the stories were going to be for the time.

            http://m.imgur.com/UTq0S95

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      Funny, this time last year I was in the Middle East getting shot at. Just because they quit reporting a war on the news doesn’t mean it is over.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        It’s got to be uncomfortable knowing something and reading what the SJWs post here.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          I’ve never read a post that included the term SJW that wasn’t a covert attack on American values. America was founded on principles of social justice, and the people attacking them are merely hanging onto their bigoted views like a toddler clutching his blankey.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Slavery and social justice have much in common, and I regularly hear from SJWs that the US was founded on slavery. It must get confusing fighting for lies.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “America was founded on principles of social justice”

            America was founded on the “principles” of screeching trigglypuffs? C’mon now.

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy6spOAbxhg

            Never mind I found out what the principles are, they’re Hugh Mungus.
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ebYuKP-6BA

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    With regard to present albeit temporary lower gas prices tempting the great unwashed to buy larger vehicles that they have no legitimate use for, I had a wise college professor who summed up the behavior of the sheeple with the following quote
    “their memories are shorter than their dic*s”.
    Enough said.

  • avatar
    yamahog

    I don’t mind other people driving trucks / SUVs. I just mind those things being driven poorly. I’d rather someone runs a red light in a Mirage than a Suburban and I wish the tickets reflected this.

    Speeding in a busted up 1 ton ram from the clinton administration is much more dangerous than speeding a top a new ZX-10R.

    You know, we could address this glut by increasing speed limits – and probably increase productivity as well. In my world, there would be no speed limit enforcement between 6 am and 7:30 am – get to work hoi polloi.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      yamahog – Montana briefly had a “reasonable and prudent” daytime speed limit post double nickle. It was real fun for driving/riding enthusiasts. Policing the idiots out there was what killed it.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      “Speeding in a busted up 1 ton ram from the clinton administration is much more dangerous than speeding a top a new ZX-10R.”

      Except the dip$hit that cut me off tonight returning from the MSP airport was driving a little $hitbox S10. He was doing close to almost 80 MPH in a 60 MPH zone weaving around traffic doing over over 70 MPH.

      I can cause just as much havoc with my Volt as I can with my 2500 HD GMC. When someone is riding my a$$ in the little Volt it’s never the guy in a FS PU or SUV. The people in the big vehicles as a whole seem to be better drivers here in MN based on my anectdotal observations.

      Wasn’t it in SD years back that someone driving a minivan managed to knock a school bus on it’s side filled w/children.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      “Speeding in a busted up 1 ton ram from the clinton administration is much more dangerous than speeding a top a new ZX-10R.”

      Except the dip$hit that cut me off tonight returning from the MSP airport was driving a little $hitbox S10. He was doing close to almost 80 MPH in a 60 MPH zone waving around traffic doing over over 70 MPH.

      I can cause just as much havoc with my Volt as I can with my 2500 HD GMC. When someone is riding my a$$ in the little Volt it’s never the guy in a FS PU or SUV. The people in the big vehicles as a whole seem to be better drivers here in MN based on my anecdotal observations.

      Wasn’t in SD years back that someone driving a minivan managed to knock a school bus on it’s side filled w/children.

  • avatar

    No, I will not complain that it is costing less to feed a 3.6 liter CTS than it did to feed a 2.0 liter TDi did at the peak.

    Nice to be able to spin up the V6 and not care.

    Gonna be ugly, though, when the cycle flips again.

    • 0 avatar
      ArialATOMV8

      I feel blessed that we have these low gas prices when I’m finally driving my own car. I have bestowed a semi dull Highlander and, gas is so cheap that I can floor it more and, listen to the song of a practical person’s car opening up it’s true potential!

      Meanwhile, it’s also viable for me to benefit off of the savings and put some money aside for the car of my dreams, the legendary 80 series Land Cruiser which off of memory achieves 12MPG with it’s stock engine (eventually will place a LS1 in it’s bay and then, it will guzzle gas like a Ford GT!)

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        We talked to you about this before.

        Get an education, save for your education to fix your grammar! LC will wait til later.

        • 0 avatar
          ArialATOMV8

          Thanks for your advice and continued support :). I’m now enrolled in college working on my education. I’ve also started controlling my obsession with them and have vowed not to purchase A LC or any other “fun/silly” car till after I graduate. Finally out of all the money I earn, most of it goes to my education.

          I still have my obsessive rants every in awhile but they are becoming more controllable.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    There was an article in the Wall Street Journal about ten years ago about a geologist at a university that hypothesized that oil did not come from dinosaurs but that the Earth itself had a liquid core that was oil and as it migrated to the surface of the Earth it picked up remains of plant and animal materials. There were offshore oil wells off the the Gulf Coast of Louisiana that had more oil reserves now than they had during the 70s when it was predicted that these wells would run out of oil by the 90s. Cameras were placed in the bottom of these wells and it was discovered that oil was seeping into the bottom of these wells. Some geologist believe that the Earth will burn up and die before we run out of oil. An interesting article but a possible explanation as to why we are discovering more oil besides the oil and gas found by fracking. If this is true then we will have plenty of oil but that still does not negate Global warming or the increasing smog in major metropolitan areas which increased use of fossil fuel will continue to worsen. We as a country have at least 200 years of coal with known resources and possible a thousand years but do we want to use coal as a major power source for generating electricity when we know what will happen as a result of its continued use? We need coal and oil for now but we need to transition to cleaner sources of energy. There is much more at stake than the availability of oil and coal.

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    Don’t these people realize it only takes one incident in the Middle East to screw up the whole oil pipeline and raise the prices of crude to where they should be.

  • avatar
    Truckducken

    This is great! Buy low, sell high: I’m getting me some hybrids.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      With cheap gas, a hybrid will sell for cheap and still cost less to run. I have no regrets in having bought one in 2014 for 25% off MSRP.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      Yes, I bought my Volt at a big discount last year, and it warms my heart (along with the second hottest summer recorded in SW PA) to know that the oil I saved will end up powering a pickup or SUV driven by someone who couldn’t care less.

      The worst part: If there is a huge “tipping point” event, like half of the Greenland ice sheet tumbling into the North Atlantic, the only ones to experience a sense of fear, disappointment and terrible loss will be the ones who tried to stop it – the others will just shrug their shoulders and claim, “nuthin’ I could do about it.”

      Maybe there is a God who will “push the reset button” on this mess, because his “children” have failed, but I really doubt it.

      For now, pedal to the metal, mo-fo’s!

  • avatar
    John

    Anyone who can predict the future price of oil can make virtually unlimited amounts of money. Get back to us when you’ve made your first billion $$$ in the oil futures market.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    Speaking of politics, the highway trust fund is running low. If there’s an extended period of low gas prices, expect the federal gas tax to go up to replenish the fund. Also expect states to follow suit with similar raises in their cents-per-gallon gas tax.

    Expect states to view low gas prices to be an opportunity for more local gas excise and sales taxes in lieu of state aid to local governments. The tax burden will keep prices at the pump from getting too low – politicians can’t resist tapping another revenue source.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    With the economy still in the toilet, wages stagnant, and the current admin trying to pass more disasterous trade policies; the average citizens are finding it difficult to enjoy the lifestyle that Americans worked so hard to have. With that, Fewer than ever will get to enjoy driving in a vehicle that isn’t a tin can, full size SUVs that Americans have enjoyed for 60 years are now over $50k, trucks are averaging over 30k and they can’t even sell as many as they did 10 years ago despite massive improvements in fuel economy. Instead consumers are forced into tiny crossovers such as the Traverse which more realistically align with where inflation would have taken the fullsize SUVs.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      TIL the Traverse is “tiny”. An Equinox must be positively miniscule, then. I don’t know how grandma does it.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        I’ve suffered it before, its positively claustrophobic having a roof line that sags down to the driver.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          But what about the vehicle itself is “tiny”? It’s longer than a Tahoe.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            The capability of one to have ample space around their body such that they have range to move around without hitting pillars, door panels, center console, etc.

            If my elbow is above my shoulder when resting on the window sill, that’s a good indication of a tiny vehicle. If my face is less than 2 feet from the windshield when comfortably positioned, that’s a good indicator of a small car.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            The word you’re looking for, then, is “cramped,” not “tiny.” Modern cars aren’t meant to rest your arm on the windowsill anyway.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            That’s ridiculous, how are modern cars not meant for one to rest their arm on the windowsill, that’s not a feature that’s a design that’s as important as the steering wheel. The only way one could make that argument is to say that the cars are so small and weigh so little that the high sill is required to make up for an otherwise poorly designed safety structure.
            I would say that small and cramped are synonymous, Mack trucks (at least as I remember) didn’t seem to have any of those problems, nor did a ’59 Impala Parkwood, or a ’76 W250 Powerwagon or even a 06 Tahoe. Those are all Fullsize and with that I would say that Fullsize and cramped are, as I originally postulated two separate groups.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            With how high the beltlines are, you’re supposed to rest your arm on the /arm/rest/.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I think you’ve changed directions here, your kinda proving my point about more people being stuck in small cars and living with the burdens associated with them, if your answer to my point is that we’re no longer expected to have the ability to comfortably fit in normal sized vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            What is “normal-sized,” though? A ’59 Impala? I’m not saying that it’s good or bad that we can’t rest our arms on windowsills, I’m saying that’s just the way it is right now.

            It seems that you’re just trying to apply subjective terms to objective figures.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            The point I’m trying to make is that fewer people can comfortably drive their choices in vehicles that in years past were no major swing. When I was little 24 month loans were seen as long term, and 36 month term loans were seen as too long and therefore made the reasonable person take a look elsewhere. When we’re at the point that 60 months for a Traverse is seen as an acceptable time frame for paying off such a tiny vehicle that was built with less labor costs than in previous decades it is black mark on the state of our economy. Your getting significantly less vehicle for the inflation adjusted cost of the traditional SUV.

            My goal of pointing out vehicles from the past is that those vehicles did not suffer from problems associated with cheaper vehicles today, but instead more closely resemble their modern interpretation in simple design language that should be expected of all vehicles. Clearly there is no elegant modern interpretation of a ’59 impala, even Rolls Royce has a hard time making a car that exudes a sense of power and road ownership as that beast.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            And my point is that you continue to refer to a Traverse as “tiny,” which it is not. Really, that’s the only problem I have. I don’t disagree with much else that you said.

  • avatar
    shaker

    Oh well, we all want to commute 250 miles a week so we can have a “yard”, and since children are quite frequently being shuttled to daycare, then we have tall SUV’s, and since the “poors” have to drive compacts/non SUV’s, to protect their children (and make sure that the airbags are effective against getting t-boned by much taller SUV’s) the side windows have shrunk to slits. Et-cetera.

    It’s for the children, so we shouldn’t squawk.

    It’s a war out there.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I doubt we will ever see the large cars of the past and I doubt we will ever see vehicles with lower window sills and larger windows. Safety and environmental regulations have made vehicles safer but much more mundane and expensive. Many buyers have migrated toward large crew cab pickups but even they are getting more regulated and their prices have gone up to where eventually they too will become less popular. As for the Chevy Traverse it is a large enough sized vehicle but it is based on a uni-body car platform and is much less expensive to produce than a BOF truck or SUV. Vehicles for the most part have become more globalized except for the full size BOF pickups and suvs which are the last holdouts, but even they will eventually become more global. Less expensive to develop a global platform that can be used in more than one country and spread out among different models and development costs can be recouped much sooner.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Matt Posky: “Matt Posky isn’t an EV fan. Got it. Yawn.” Depends on the application. Work in the city and...
  • Lou_BC: @Inside Looking Out – Global supply chains will be disrupted for reasons other than Covid. That local...
  • Matt Posky: They actually discussed making “The Beast” all electric back in May. The White House even...
  • Lou_BC: “give away a few fleet vehicles.” That does happen. I saw a RCMP Nissan Altima roaming around and...
  • Lou_BC: Hyundai and Kia both carry a stigma of being junk cars. A few friends and acquaintances had purchased them...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber