Are automakers and oil companies in cahoots and that is why automakers have not found a solution to fuel cost.

Question

Are automakers and oil companies in cahoots and that is why automakers have not found a solution to fuel cost.

Answer 1

Duh,

What are you thinking about!

Of course they are in bed together. They also have the congress in there pockets too.

We have the technology to be at least 50% less dependant on oil, but we are not , what do you think!

Answer 2

Well, I’m not supposed to say anything, but yeah- it’s a huge conspiracy. Let’s keep this answer on the ‘low down’ because you never know who’s watching.

P.S. The truth is out there.

P.P.S. Just because you’re paranoid does’nt mean ‘they’ are not out to get you.

Answer 3

It makes you wonder. Some car companies haven't gotten into making more fuel efficient cars.  I still thik that they could even improve the fuel efficiency on alot of the SUVs that are made.

Answer 4

Of course. Why would they try to resolve the energy crisis or save the environment when their profits depend on wasting energy and disrupting the environment?? -RKO-  05/21/07

Answer 5

Yes.Do like me,buy a pre 1985 mercedes diesel and run on wvo.Still my 300SD will get over 50mpg city,and 34 mpg interstate on diesel.

Answer 6

if that is the case, why are so many of the auto makers showing little to no profits, yet the oil companies are setting record profits?

Answer 7

Automakers are perfectly capable of making fuel efficient vehicles, and there are many on the market.  The problem is, many people simply do not want to buy one.  This is not a conspiracy, it is simply the way a free market works.  

If everyone were to buy a fuel efficient car then the demand for fuels would go down and the price would fall with it.  It is not going to happen, however, because many of us don't feel that the cost of driving a large and/or powerful car is too high and we prefer this type of vehicle.

Butch J,  I am going to have to call B.S. on your little fairy tale.  If you have proof of this statement then please post it.  The patent number for this supposed invention would be excellent proof.  Just in case you don't know how the patent system works, once something is patented, the invention is a matter of public record, the patent prevents anyone other than the patent owner from producing the invention, so purchasing the patent rights can prevent its production, but it does not remove the patent from the public record.  

And, patents are only good for 20 years and are very difficult, almost impossible to renew.  Thus, if this invention truly existed and was patented in the '60's as you claim:

1) The patent would still be on record with the patent office.

2) This patent would discribe the invention with sufficient detail to allow it to be duplicated.

3) The patent would have expired some time in the '80's, and the invention would have become open art that anyone could duplicate.

Answer 8

No.

Unless the automakers are really bad at their end of the deal.

Automakers like GM and Ford are losing money because people are purchasing vehicles from Toyota and Honda that get "better MPG" than GM and Ford vehicles.  

Automakers have found solutions but they aren't yet feasible.  Batteries don't last long enough yet to get far and different types of fuels require different types of storage and fueling stations.  That's a lot of infrastructure to build and it won't happen overnight.

Wait for the Chevy Volt.

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/edu_...

Answer 9

I don't know if this is the answer you want but, I do know back in the 1960's. A carburator was made and patented that would average 50 miles to the gallon in the city. GM bought the carburator, the rights and the patent. They then proceeded to scrap it on the shelf and it was never heard of again. I also know when we had the first fuel shortage back in the early to mid 1970's. There were full fuel tankers sailing from refinery to refinery, looking for a place to drop there oil and they were turned down at every one.

Answer 10

I am not sure that there are any real incentives for the auto mfgs. to build such a vehicle.  If there were any substantial tax breaks involved then the democrats would start attacking them saying they are in cahoots with the Bush administration.  It's a no win and sad situation for them.

Answer 11

Oil companies don't need automakers to be in cahoots with them.   Automakers build the cars people want.  The cars people want depend on the price of gas.  OPEC controls and manipulates the price of gas.

In the early 80s there was another oil crisis, it was the previous "all time high" in inflation-adjusted dollars, until just this week.  People started buying fuel-efficient cars like crazy instead of American land yachts. The Japanese automakers made out like bandits, and this SAVED Chrysler, who had just come out with the efficient "K" car.

Any way, the oil companies figured this out.  In the early 90s when General Motors was promoting their EV1 prototype, they noticed.  When California CARB saw it and said 10% of cars sold in California must be electric, OPEC really noticed!

Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, OPEC low-balled the price of gasoline, to all-time historic lows.   This had the effect of undercutting any alternatives: Why buy an electric car when gas is only $1.20 a gallon?  Why brew biodiesel at $3.00/gal when diesel is only $1.25/gal?  So those options pretty much died.

Meanwhile because of cheap fuel, consumers wanted big cars and trucks, thus, the SUV craze.  Designing a car takes 3-5 years, so the automakers need a "crystal ball" to guess what consumers would want 3-5 years hence.  What's in showrooms today reflects their best guess of 2002-2004.  When gas was cheap.

Nowadays people would kill for an electric car.  But when they were crushing them in 2002, nobody foresaw that.

Answer 12

The answer to this is in front of us The public keeps buying gas guzzling SUV and pick up trucks so there is no reason for them to do such a thing. Yes we know the needs of the soccer mom and the space needed to transport the kids. Best reason to have 2 cars one for when everyone is going. but count the SUV you see with only one person in them. I like the big jeeps myself get they hybrids send a message