I remember in 2008 with the mini fuel crises.
People started driving slower on the highways to save fuel.

And the bottom of the market just dropped out from some vehicles especially V8 powered body-on-frame SUVs.

What do you guys think?
Might we look forward to a similar experience?

I'd say yes, but at least in the short term, not to the extent we saw in the Carter years. The chip shortage and general supply issues will likely keep the price of all vehicles artificially high for at least another year. I'd expect more of a premium on economy models rather than the bottom falling out on big stuff.

Having lived thru the gas crises during the 70's. I agree with Vstar650CL. I'm guessing there will a surge in prices for small fuel efficient vehicles, and perhaps temporary glut of V8 guzzlers resulting in slight discounts. This crisis is a bit more complicated than the 70's making it more difficult to predict, including impacts from the chip shortage, the pandemic shifting more people to telecommuting, the current growing popularity of electric vehicles.

I remember in 2008 you could get $10000 off MSRP for V8 SUVs.
And that was in 2008 dollars.

I believe '08 right after the Bush bubble was the previous record holder for gas prices, a bit below the $4+ record we set today. Of course, $2+ gas in the 70's was a larger bite of the average income than $4+ gas today, but it won't be stopping at $4 this time. Biden shows no sign of standing up to the green crazies at the fringe of his party, and until and unless he does, we'll be headed higher. In concert with irrational policies, the clotted supply chain guarantees it. I've even heard other sorts of nutcases pointing out that the higher prices are re-opening scads of mothballed wells, and that's true as long as you ignore the fact that were capped because they were unprofitable. Unlike fresher wells, the cost of extraction will shut them down again the moment the price drops. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that such measures can only help prices level off, but can't possibly lower them.

(sigh) I guess there aren't many geniuses on TV these days, even on the business channels.

The regime just banned import of Russian oil and gas.
$7-$8 / gallon gasoline here we come.

Bigger question... Why can't we become energy independent again? I miss those cheap 87 prices under President 45. Can't even drive my Honda now because of increasing gas prices.

datechboss101 wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:08 am

Why can't we become energy independent again?

We can, easily. The bigger-than-bigger question is, why did anyone vote for this?


Biden is only doing what he said he would do. Miss your mean tweets yet?

VStar650CL wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:24 am

datechboss101 wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:08 am

Why can't we become energy independent again?

We can, easily. The bigger-than-bigger question is, why did anyone vote for this?


Biden is only doing what he said he would do. Miss your mean tweets yet?

Biden is just a puppet. Never liked him or 44 at all. I know for a fact, globalists think that our powergrid can suddenly support a sudden spike in EVs and they also think all of us working class people can shell out money like its nothing to buy an EV that literally goes for at least a minimum of $40k for a reasonably sized vehicle to fit big people like me.

VStar650CL wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 06, 2022 8:55 pm

I'd say yes, but at least in the short term, not to the extent we saw in the Carter years. The chip shortage and general supply issues will likely keep the price of all vehicles artificially high for at least another year. I'd expect more of a premium on economy models rather than the bottom falling out on big stuff.

Agreed. Rather than the bigger V8 stuff coming down in value, I tend to think maybe it just wont be inflated as much.

I don't think every vehicle with higher fuel consumption will rapidly drop in price, especially trucks. I expect that large SUVs and what's left of the large luxury vehicles will drop in demand, but who knows with the way the vehicle market is.

I'm more curious to see what the older used market does though. I got a lot of good deals on SUVs back during the last major fuel surge. Might be time to pick up an Escalade or QX56

VStar650CL wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:24 am

datechboss101 wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:08 am

Why can't we become energy independent again?

We can, easily. The bigger-than-bigger question is, why did anyone vote for this?


Biden is only doing what he said he would do. Miss your mean tweets yet?

Yep, we could become independent... technically, but that would require American oil companies to curtail exports which makes them more money than selling it here, even with the current prices. Oil is a global commodity, and last time I looked oil companies are not charities. IMHO everyone seems have become too focused on who's in the oval office for blame/credit of price fluctuations instead of more obvious reasons. That includes (but not limited to) this wild and crazy concept called ..."supply and demand". Other reasons include not enough refining capacity, which gets impacted by extreme weather events plus cannot react quickly when demand shoots up (like it did post-pandemic shutdown), greed (of course), transportation/distribution (both crude and processed), seasonal formula changes, etc. etc.

Back to V8's, I read Chrysler/FCA/Stellantis (whatever they call themselves now) announced they will stop selling hemi 's in their new car lineup after next year.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:12 am

Yep, we could become independent...

Correction, we were independent, from 2017~2020. Now we're not. Again.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:12 am

technically, but that would require American oil companies to curtail exports which makes them more money than selling it here, even with the current prices. Oil is a global commodity, and last time I looked oil companies are not charities.

That's a complete crock. US oil exports rose from around 15K barrels/mo in 2015 to around 100K barrels/mo in 2020, and US fuel prices fell. That's from EIA.gov, look it up.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:12 am

IMHO everyone seems have become too focused on who's in the oval office for blame/credit of price fluctuations instead of more obvious reasons. That includes (but not limited to) this wild and crazy concept called ..."supply and demand".

Only wild and crazy if you overlook the relationship between "supply and demand" and "profit and loss". I realize that people with s__t-colored glasses tend to do that.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:12 am

Other reasons include not enough refining capacity, which gets impacted by extreme weather events plus cannot react quickly when demand shoots up (like it did post-pandemic shutdown)

From 1995 to 2015, zero new refineries were built in the US, and the last large one was built in Valdez in 1993. Also from EIA.gov, look it up. That was entirely due to onerous EPA permitting regulations and other legal roadblocks. From 2015~2018 five new ones opened, all large. I'm entirely confident that there will now be no more new ones between 2020~2024.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:12 am

greed (of course)

Yeah, yeah. That's limited to oil companies, right?

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:12 am

transportation/distribution (both crude and processed)

Hmm $5/gal diesel for the truckers and railroads, and not enough pipelines. Wonder who caused that? Don't tell me Vladimir Putin, I'll puke.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 27, 2022 12:33 pm

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/exami ... ce-claims/

1) The Annenberg Foundation, which parents FactCheck.org, receives primary funding these days from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I won't call it as biased as, say, CNN, but probably no better than WaPo (and for the same reasons. Jeff Bezos is just as sleazy-woke but demonstrably greedier). In any case, any website that would put this on their front page without mentioning that vaccines are practically ineffective against the most recent strains of COVID cannot be trusted within a mile of the word "factual". Distortion by omission or understatement is no better than lying:
"Q: How do people who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 pose a risk to people who have been vaccinated?

A: An unvaccinated person who is infected with COVID-19 poses a much greater risk to others who are also unvaccinated. But vaccines are not 100% effective, so there is a chance that an unvaccinated person could infect a vaccinated person — particularly the vulnerable, such as elderly and immunocompromised individuals."

Try finding some better sources.

2) Defining "energy independence" as only consuming our own production is nearly the most ridiculous premise I've ever heard. Yet that is your "fact check's" premise for saying energy independence didn't exist under the prior administration. You yourself pointed out that energy is global, and the most sensible definition is producing more energy than is consumed. Ironically, your "fact check" even admits this:

"U.S. exports of primary energy did exceed its energy imports from foreign sources under Trump in 2019 and 2020 — the first times that had happened since 1952, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration."

By other definitions, it can be argued the independence occurred as early as late 2017, but that's quibbling about angels on a pinhead. As Abe Lincoln reputedly told an attorney who was similarly attempting to distort and ignore the truth, "Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg." Nobody knows if the attribution is true, but everybody can understand the point. There's a whole cottage industry these days in the business of calling tails legs, and if those are your preferred information sources, c'est la vie. I prefer calling a leg a leg.

VStar650CL wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 27, 2022 1:37 pm

"Q: How do people who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 pose a risk to people who have been vaccinated?

A: An unvaccinated person who is infected with COVID-19 poses a much greater risk to others who are also unvaccinated. But vaccines are not 100% effective, so there is a chance that an unvaccinated person could infect a vaccinated person — particularly the vulnerable, such as elderly and immunocompromised individuals."

So there's no confusion, the Q/A above was specifically discussing transmissibility and not other factors. Here's what a recent study in Ontario, Canada found regarding the omicron strain and vaccines:

We included 3,442 Omicron-positive cases, 9,201 Delta-positive cases, and 471,545 test-negative controls. After 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine effectiveness against Delta infection declined steadily over time but recovered to 93% (95%CI, 92-94%) ≥7 days after receiving an mRNA vaccine for the third dose. In contrast, receipt of 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines was not protective against Omicron. Vaccine effectiveness against Omicron was 37% (95%CI, 19-50%) ≥7 days after receiving an mRNA vaccine for the third dose.

Conclusions Two doses of COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against infection by Omicron. A third dose provides some protection in the immediate term, but substantially less than against Delta.

Studies in Britain, South Africa and Israel have all shown similar results. When discussing transmission, to couch it in terms of "vaccines are not 100% effective" is simply dishonest. In practical terms the vaccines are ineffective against the spread of omicron and subsequent variants. To posit otherwise serves no one's interest but Pfizer and Moderna. I find the FactCheck.org website to be littered with similar BS.

Back on topic - My local dealer had $5k markups on Titans (yes... Titans... and they were slinging them out the door at that price save for a lone 2WD Platinum Reserve that hung around for months) before the spike. Now there's a $5k discount from MSRP on all of them.

I have been running 93 octane in my Titan (400hp map and I swear it runs better than the couple times I tried 87...) and it cost me a dollar per octane point to refill on Monday. I'm starting to waver on my dedication to Shell V Power in my truck.

RicerX wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 6:55 am

Back on topic - My local dealer had $5k markups on Titans (yes... Titans... and they were slinging them out the door at that price save for a lone 2WD Platinum Reserve that hung around for months) before the spike. Now there's a $5k discount from MSRP on all of them.

Agreed. I think in the short term that's the pattern we'll see, markups on econoboxes and markdowns on big stuff. If the chip and gas situations don't improve in 2023, then all bets are off and we could see a complete collapse of big vehicle prices.

RicerX wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 6:55 am

I have been running 93 octane in my Titan (400hp map and I swear it runs better than the couple times I tried 87...) and it cost me a dollar per octane point to refill on Monday. I'm starting to waver on my dedication to Shell V Power in my truck.

I know the feeling. I have been running 93 Octane in my Pathfinder since the day I bought it, until about two months ago. I finally caved and changed my tune to the 87 Octane map and started off just running 89 Octane in it for a couple of weeks, then down to 87 Octane. Oddly enough, I really haven't noticed much difference overall. Fuel economy actually improved slightly and performance really didn't waver enough for me to notice. I'm sure it made some difference, but it's a Pathfinder that gets around 13 MPG average. At this point I'm not paying $80 to barely make it 250 miles on a tank.

Maybe I'll switch to midrange if this keeps going. At least when I a, driving away from the Florida coast ( sealevel plus heat plus high mile engine=greater need for Octane)