The era of the 100 is here.

[zimm]

Without the current U.S. federal government oil/fuel industry subsidies it is said our current price per gallon would be at $10.00 per gallon.

eh? i think youve been in the sun


:sunny:

 

[spressomon]

Exxon's refining margins are around $40 per barrel at the current price of oil. Remove subsidies and other artificial pricing variables and I still think the current price of gasoline would be the more or less purely market determined price. So assuming the price of gasoline is $3, Exxon generates $126 per barrel of oil. If the crude cost $75, that means there is $51 in cost and profit (so $10 of each barrel does not go to Exxon, mostly taxes I'd expect). Assuming those costs stayed fixed, at $10/gallon for gasoline, each barrel of oil would give Exxon 5 times the refining margins they have now. I really doubt the market would bear $10/gal and so Exxon would not naturally charge that much unless the price of crude and the cost of processing also tripled. Please expand on the $10/gal thought, that does not seem right. Who is saying this? How much of the $40 margin is subsidized? If it's most, then I could see the oil companies raising the price. OPEC largely sets the barrel price, so not much the US Government can do there. Something like 1/3 the pump price is taxes, so that's not helping anyone when they fill their tank. Subsidizes are apparently not at the refining level, since no one seems to want to tackle the red tape to get one built anymore. If they are paying them not to refine, then removing the subsidy would increase the number of refineries and the price would go down. Where are the subsidies coming and going?

I'll see if I can find the article...I saw it several weeks ago...can't remember if it was on-line or maybe in one of my paper magazines.

Also...remember the federal government actually benefits from the wild price swings/hence profit levels of the big oil companies...it's called short term capital gains. Last year when oil company profits were at record highs the federal government got their share...sort of a silent tax (to the general public anyway)...to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars...

I understand, amongst the worlds developed countries, the USA is still one of the lowest costs for gasoline.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I understand, amongst the worlds developed countries, the USA is still one of the lowest costs for gasoline.

102 lowest of 141 (I love NationMaster):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_gas_pri-energy-gasoline-prices

Our gasoline price is very low when compared to highly developed nations, similar to New Zealand. Overall it's low against average, but the very expensive prices are largely Europe and I suspect taxes are not a small reason for that.

 

[Pskhaat]

There is a subsidy if you consider the oil wars and foreign oil policy, though not direct.

The US also benefits from high oil demand as the oil markets are largely traded in USD. Yes, US is relatively low in terms of price/quantity of fuel, but we also don't have the tax base against it nor receive the benefits like public transportation that other countries do.


Now, back the Hundy! LC's fuel consumption is horrible, even in the more modern engines. Even in the gasoline maybe a poor range of gearing? It is too bad that Toyota/Hino diesel's never make it into the States due to Toyota USA.

 

[spressomon]

There is a subsidy if you consider the oil wars and foreign oil policy, though not direct.

The US also benefits from high oil demand as the oil markets are largely traded in USD. Yes, US is relatively low in terms of price/quantity of fuel, but we also don't have the tax base against it nor receive the benefits like public transportation that other countries do.


Now, back the Hundy! LC's fuel consumption is horrible, even in the more modern engines. Even in the gasoline maybe a poor range of gearing? It is too bad that Toyota/Hino diesel's never make it into the States due to Toyota USA.

I think the '03+ with 5spd picked up a little better mileage than the '98-'02 due to more efficient shift points etc. locrwln1 brought this issue up with the 4.5L 80...why is it low on HP and has terrible efficiency?

However...my buddy with his Duramax 2500 used to get 18-19mpg at highway speeds when stock; he added lift, 35" MT's, a camper shell that sticks up above the cab some...and now it's 14mpg highway. I would have expected the DM to power right over the mods without a resultant 20-25% decrease in efficiency.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I would have expected the DM to power right over the mods without a resultant 20-25% decrease in efficiency.

Is he running stock gearing and is his speedometer adjusted for the tire size difference? If not, a jump from say a ~31" (just guessing on stock tire sizes) to a 35" tire would end up registering miles around 20% to 25% slower than stock. So the mileage would look like it's a lot worse since the odometer isn't registering miles accurately.

 

[Pskhaat]

I would have expected the DM to power right over the mods without a resultant 20-25% decrease in efficiency.

You have scared me on the the Duramax I really want to build a full-sized but have no plans of so doing if I'd get the same mileage!


I did see this with our Hundy. I'd pull an easy 20mpg light hwy driving until the OME lift and 315s. Now we're 14-16. ******? I used to be about 18-19 on my FZJ80 now I'm about at 12-15 but I have lots of weight and tires and lift and RTT, bumpers, et cetera.

I can't figure out why the drivetrain takes a nose dive on the mpg scale on the LC100. I am also running 315s on that, but with 4.30s and the same tranny thought I could see a lesser % of decrease in mpg than I do.

I will soon drop to a lower sized tire on the 100 and see how that affects it.

I've always heard preached efficiency and reliability are inverse relations. You can have one, but not both.

Edit for DiD: those numbers above are tire-size corrected

 

[spressomon]

Is he running stock gearing and is his speedometer adjusted for the tire size difference? If not, a jump from say a ~31" (just guessing on stock tire sizes) to a 35" tire would end up registering miles around 20% to 25% slower than stock. So the mileage would look like it's a lot worse since the odometer isn't registering miles accurately.

That was the first thing I asked him...and he said he adjusted the miles for the 35"...but not quite the same as doing it myself ;-)

 

[DaveInDenver]

Edit for DiD: those numbers above are tire-size corrected

I used to assume that everyone corrected, but now I'm not so sure. Just mentioning it.

 

[spressomon]

You have scared me on the the Duramax I really want to build a full-sized but have no plans of so doing if I'd get the same mileage!


I did see this with our Hundy. I'd pull an easy 20mpg light hwy driving until the OME lift and 315s. Now we're 14-16. ******? I used to be about 18-19 on my FZJ80 now I'm about at 12-15 but I have lots of weight and tires and lift and RTT, bumpers, et cetera.

I can't figure out why the drivetrain takes a nose dive on the mpg scale on the LC100. I am also running 315s on that, but with 4.30s and the same tranny thought I could see a lesser % of decrease in mpg than I do.

I will soon drop to a lower sized tire on the 100 and see how that affects it.

I've always heard preached efficiency and reliability are inverse relations. You can have one, but not both.

Edit for DiD: those numbers above are tire-size corrected

My MPG stayed the same when I went from stock 4.30 and 285R7516 MT/R's to 4.88 and 315R7516 MT/R's (nothing else changed on the rig that would have affected MPG). So given the heavier and larger 315's the drivetrain is actually running more efficient with the 4.88/315 vs 4.30/285's.

The best I ever pulled with my stock '99 was 18mpg...but to do that I had to keep the rpm's under 2,000...which is the sweet spot for the 4.7L.

 

[locrwln]

However...my buddy with his Duramax 2500 used to get 18-19mpg at highway speeds when stock; he added lift, 35" MT's, a camper shell that sticks up above the cab some...and now it's 14mpg highway. I would have expected the DM to power right over the mods without a resultant 20-25% decrease in efficiency.

Wow. My PSD runs about the same mileage, but when I drop to 14 mpg, it's because I am hauling a 3500lb+ Lance 10' Cabover Camper, doesn't seem to matter if the trailer is behind the camper or not. Of course, I am running the stock gearing and stock size tires.

I don't think I knew that the stock 100's could pull that kind of mileage, that is impressive. Too bad there is such a penalty when the mods we like are added.

Jack

 

[Brian894x4]

locrwln1 brought this issue up with the 4.5L 80...why is it low on HP and has terrible efficiency?

Compared to the engine it replaced, effeciency is way up. Remember this engine was developed some 18 years ago, when the the 22RE was still the primary mini-truck engine and the 3.0 V-6 making 150 h.p. and getting about 15-18 mpg was the top of the line engine in the mini-trucks.

So, 212 h.p. and 275 ft/lbs of torque and about 15 mpg in a vehicle that weighed about 3 tons, was not bad, considering the engine it replaced.

But most importantly, the 1FZ was designed almost entirely around being reliable and durable, since most applications involved use overseas. Toyota was also limited in that they had to maintain roughly the same engine deminsions as the 3FE.

By keeping the h.p. low, the engine could last forever in virtually any condition, and with lower compression than other engines of the day, could run on almost any pump gas, including the gas found in 3rd world countries and the engine was specificly tuned for extremely low end torque for low speed towing and driving over rough roads.

I got more detailed info about the 1FZ development and history on this page:

http://www.brian894x4.com/ExpeditionLandCruiserFZJ80engine.html

It's too bad the TRD superchargers are discontinued, because they apparantely really wake up the 1FZ, which goes to show just how detuned the motor really is. I would sure love to have one on my '95.

 

[spressomon]

Wow. My PSD runs about the same mileage, but when I drop to 14 mpg, it's because I am hauling a 3500lb+ Lance 10' Cabover Camper, doesn't seem to matter if the trailer is behind the camper or not. Of course, I am running the stock gearing and stock size tires.

I don't think I knew that the stock 100's could pull that kind of mileage, that is impressive. Too bad there is such a penalty when the mods we like are added.

Jack

The mods are the same with respect to bumpers, sliders, and lift (as long as you don't need/want more than 2.75" of lift...otherwise forget it!). However not much in the way of used deals out there on this stuff yet.

 

[DaveInDenver]

It's too bad the TRD superchargers are discontinued, because they apparantely really wake up the 1FZ, which goes to show just how detuned the motor really is. I would sure love to have one on my '95.

Someone at the last club meeting said TRD is replacing the old M90 supercharger with a newer design. I dunno specifics, but might just be a redesign of the s/c that's in the works. Just unsubstantiated, uncredited rumor.

 

[locrwln]

Someone at the last club meeting said TRD is replacing the old M90 supercharger with a newer design. I dunno specifics, but might just be a redesign of the s/c that's in the works. Just unsubstantiated, uncredited rumor.

That's interesting that they would be redesigning a S/C for a 10+ year old vehicle. Maybe there was enough of a demand in other parts of the world and we will get the benefits...

Jack