Start-Stop Technology Becoming Mainstream

Sounds like a nightmare waiting to happen.

What happens in a prolonged traffic jam when the auxiliary battery goes dead from running AC?

$1100 over 5 years?

Lets see...that's $220 a year, or $18 per month, or about $4.50 per week. Wow!

Hmm...

...One could save a lot more than a gallon or so per week by driving just a bit more conservatively. You're right; it's a nightmare in the making. What will the manufacturers do when a fatal accident occurs because the vehicle wouldn't restart?

I am thinking that this was not very well thought out.

I agree that it is not well studied as to all the downsides, but I think that is typical where politicians are empowered to determine the requirements for future vehicles.

You mean by inflating our tires. :)

I'm rarely in traffic jams, but if I'm in one, or at a light that I know is a long one, I put the car in park. I suspect that this is part of the reason that manual transmissions get better mileage...no load on the engine.

Also. Can you imagine the frustration for people that live in frigid climates, and have to start their cars and let them warm up before leaving?

Worry not! I'm sure they will be able to buy a custom made treadmill to park the car on, so they can keep it rolling on those cold mornings.

Edit: I wonder if they figured the cost of replacement starters into that $1100?

Actually, it's not as bad as that. My 2011 SEAT and my 2013 Mercedes both have stop-start systems. Both continue to monitor the battery and restart if the drain continues beyond a defined point. The starter motors are also rated for the extra cycles. It is possible to switch the facility off in both vehicles. The USA is perhaps a little behind Europe on this one.

It seems like overkill for very little payback, but if it saves a lot of gas and works as advertised...who am I to argue?

I don't think I would like it. Not that it happens often, but if you had to punch the gas from a dead stop, (off condition), it seems like there would be a lag, along with possible lubrication issues with going from "off" to full throttle.

Drove the Mercedes (loaner car) and at first I was unaware that it was engaged or even had such a feature in the car. It is that transparent.

The tipoff was the faint sound of the starter engaging when I had the windows down.

You can turn off that feature if desired. However, I just prefer not being in traffic in the first place.

As I said, the real cost of stop and go driving is accelerating back up to speed after a stop. Cutting the engine does not fix that.

That's true. There's also a slight possibility that all car manufacturers won't go with the same high end stuff that's in a Mercedes or BMW.

But just think... once they implement Start-Stop in the Chevy Cavalier, we will have a lot of new threads.

Yeah, but you are talking about something produced to the standards of two reliable German auto makers. The article goes so far as to talk about a Chevy.

I think it is a myth to say that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have no ability to execute such a system with quality and reliability.

40 years ago that may have been very true for the US auto industry and they well earned that black mark, but Detroit has made much more technical and quality progress than the stigma of their reputation. That gap between Detroit and their competition is a lot narrower than you may think.

It is very true that advanced technology tends to find its way into the higher end marques first, but eventually they trickle into the masses once the technology is proven, improved, and cost reduced. Those high end manufactures have the luxury of customers willing to pay extra for that technology development.

Even F1 technology trickles downward into our daily rides. Things like airbags, ABS, remote tire pressure monitoring, intelligent cruise control, and self-park were all the domain of the exclusive auto manufactures. Now they are common features in most every new car sold.

'...I think it is a myth to say that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have no ability to execute such a system with quality and reliability....'

.

I agree. I'd even go farther and alter the statement to '...GM, Ford, or Chrysler...'. The ability is there are documented for each company by occasional example of quality, reliability, and innovation.

.

My comment was mostly just stirring the pot....but there is an element of truth in every joke. Quality and reliability, especially for newly added innovations, is sometimes glaringly absent in a number of Chevy models.

I'd be happier if more stop lights were synchronized and more intersections employed intelligent lights to allow traffic to just keep moving.

Stopping the engine is one way to save fuel, but the real gas guzzler is getting the vehicle back up to speed from a dead stop.

As an example I was getting almost 31 mpg highway in my car until I had to stop for tolls (my buddy's truck did not have Sunpass).

After three tolls my average dropped to the mid twenties and I was even accelerating slowly as my buddy was towing a trailer.

Over here in Turkey they have two neat little additions to their stop lights.

One is a countdown timer that tells you exactly how long before the light changes and two they have a pre go yellow that runs for about 5 seconds before the light goes from red to green similar to how it works on the green to red function.

I have to admit they are both rather nice features the US traffic control system could learn from!

I think the Pre-Green function is genetically built into the population of Italy.

The last time I was there everyone comes to a screeching halt the moment the light transitions from green to yellow because the opposite lane is already jumping the light.

Quite the opposite over here in the States. The worst is Jacksonville Florida. There a red light is more of a suggestion. When the light turns green it is best to count to 5 before you proceed through the intersection.

However, in Florida I swear they should augment or replace the Red to Green transition with an alarm clock. This is the pokiest state I have ever driven in.

'...One is a countdown timer that tells you exactly how long before the light changes and two they have a pre go yellow that runs for about 5 seconds before the light goes from red to green similar to how it works on the green to red function.

I have to admit they are both rather nice features the US traffic control system could learn from!

...'

.

This has been implemented at many of the busier traffic lights in the US. It might be the fact that its true function is obscured somewhat by the common name; 'Cross walk signal'.

.

When approaching a green light, the cross walk signal (across the road perpendicular to your path... so in easy view) will typically count down, then change (to don't walk) prior to the green light changing to yellow.

.

When stopped at a red light, the cross walk signals allowing pedestrian traffic to cross the street you are on will count down, then change (to don't walk) prior to the traffic crossing ahead of you receiving a yellow then red light, eventually leading to your own green.

.

Not exactly as simple as the Turkish system you describe, but there are some advantages to providing information only to those paying enough attention to use it safely.

Whats new about stop start the VW Polo Formel E had it back in the 80s the stop start switch was inconveniently under the gearbox sump and leaked oil.

Gas powered golf carts have had this feature for years.

We have 6 where I work and usually keep them for 5 years. They get run, on average, 7 hours a day, 5 days a week. Constant stop and go driving.

We don't do any maintenance on them, at all. It's all contracted out, even oil changes, and I do all the record keeping. Never in my 12 years at this job, have I ever had one fail due to the start-stop feature.

Petroleum producers will counter the drop in fuel usage by increasing the price of gasoline.

And state and federal government taxing entities will attach a surcharge to the purchase of all fuel efficient vehicles.

Just because they use less gas doesn't mean they aren't on the roads.

Unlikely. Neither an overall drop in fuel usage due to implementation of this technology nor a decrease in demand causing higher prices ventures into the realm of likely probabilities.

I think the whole lack of fuel efficiency problem is not the oil industry's doing.

Over here in Turkey the average vehicle gets nearly double the fuel milage of its American counterparts but the cost of fuel is nearly double as well.

The oil industry makes it's same profits but produces and sells half the amount of product to do so.

In the US cutting fuel consumption by half would cut out half of the tax revenue that the government gets which are the who and why behind our vehicles not having better fuel numbers than they can get. excessive and poorly justified EPA regs are their cover story and means of getting people to believe them.

I for one find it very odd that people will say the we need the EPA regulations on our vehicles that the government dictates yet those same people are aware that most everything else they dictate in our lives tends to be more lies and misdirection to get money from us than truth.

Personally if I ran the oil industry I would be thrilled with people having vehicles that use half the fuel but then pay twice as much to get it. It would mean I have to expend half as much effort and resources on making the product but I still get my full profit at the end.

Now if I ran the government I would be trying to convince any and everybody that they need to meet some highly questionable feel good goals that justifies them using as much of whatever I can tax the heck out of in order for me to get the most tax money out of them with the least level of complaint or resistance.

That's why I can't fully see the government and oil industries working hand in hand. Each enties end goal is not mutually advantageous.

Hmmm....

I doubt that. The oil company gets about the same "profit" per gallon of refined gasoline or diesel fuel as in the US, but Europe heavily taxes each gallon - much more so than the US.

Even with the lower fuel prices in the US, the sum of the federal, state, and local taxes far exceeds the profit margin the oil companies make per gallon of fuel. If you look at the public earnings records for oil companies you will see that they actually perform lower than most free enterprise businesses.

That is why all the government officials bash the "Big Oil" company profits so that everyone watches the right hand while the left hand is in everyone's pocket, so to speak.

While it is understandable that we need tax revenue from fuel, government should at least be straight up about who is doing the gauging here if they want to complain.

'....If you look at the public earnings records for oil companies you will see that they actually perform lower than most free enterprise businesses....'

.

You've got that completely backwards, AH. It is a rare occasion that you are 180 out of whack, so it is worth pointing out. Below is a list of largest corporate profits in history. Which group looks over represented to you?

.

#	Company	Industry	Country	Year	Report Date	Earnings (bn)	USD Inflation to December 2012 [1]	USD Real Earnings (bn)
1	ExxonMobil	Oil and gas	United States	2008	31 December 2008	$45.22 [2]	9.40%	$46.55
2	ExxonMobil	Oil and gas	United States	2006	31 December 2006	$39.5 [2]	13.95%	$45.01
3	ExxonMobil	Oil and gas	United States	2007	31 December 2007	$40.61 [2]	9.50%	$44.47
4	ExxonMobil	Oil and gas	United States	2005	31 December 2005	$36.13 [3]	16.85%	$42.22
5	ExxonMobil	Oil and gas	United States	2011	31 December 2011	$41.06 [4]	1.90%	$41.84
6	Apple	Consumer electronics	United States	2012	29 September 2012	$41.73 [5]	-0.63%	$41.47
-	Industrial & Commercial Bank of China	Banking	China	2012	31 December 2012	RMB 238.7 [6]	-	$38.07
7	Nestlé	Food processing	Switzerland	2010	31 December 2010	$37.88 [7]	4.92%	$39.74
8	Royal Dutch Shell	Oil and gas	Netherlands UK	2007	31 December 2007	$31.33 [8]	9.50%	$34.31
9	Industrial & Commercial Bank of China	Banking	China	2011	31 December 2011	RMB 208.27 [9]	1.90%	$33.34
10	ExxonMobil	Oil and gas	United States	2010	31 December 2010	$31.40 [2]	4.92%	$32.95
11	Royal Dutch Shell	Oil and gas	Netherlands UK	2011	31 December 2011	$31.19 [10]	1.90%	$31.78
12	Gazprom	Oil and gas	Russia	2011	31 December 2011	RUB 1,000.9 [11]	1.90%	$31.65
13	Ford Motor Company	Automotive	United States	1998	31 December 1998	$22.07 [12]	40.03%	$30.96
14	ExxonMobil	Oil and gas	United States	2004	31 December 2004	$25.33 [3]	20.84%	$30.61
-	China Construction Bank	Banking	China	2012	31 December 2012	RMB 193.18 [13]	-	$31.1
15	Royal Dutch Shell	Oil and gas	Netherlands UK	2005	31 December 2005	$25.31 [8]	16.85%	$29.57
16	Royal Dutch Shell	Oil and gas	Netherlands UK	2006	31 December 2006	$25.44 [8]	13.95%	$28.99
17	Royal Dutch Shell	Oil and gas	Netherlands UK	2008	31 December 2008	$26.28 [8]	9.40%	$28.75
-	Volkswagen	Automotive	Germany	2012	31 December 2012	$28.6 [14]	-	$28.6
18	Citigroup	Banking	United States	2005	31 December 2005	$24.59 [15]	16.85%	$28.73
19	Chevron	Oil and gas	United States	2011	31 December 2011	$26.90 [16]	1.90%	$27.41
20	China Construction Bank	Banking	China	2011	31 December 2011	RMB 169.26 [17]	1.90%	$27.10
21	ExxonMobil	Oil and gas	United States	2003	31 December 2003	$21.51 [3]	24.77%	$26.83
22	Royal Dutch Shell	Oil and gas	Netherlands UK	2012	31 December 2012	$26.59 [8]		$26.59
23	Gazprom	Oil and gas	Russia	2010	31 December 2010	RUB 771.2 [11]	4.92%	$26.50
24	BP	Oil and gas	United Kingdom	2005	31 December 2005	$22.63 [18]	16.85%	$26.44
25	Chevron	Oil and gas	United States	2012	31 December 2012	$26.34 [19]		$26.34
26	Apple	Consumer electronics	United States	2011	26 October 2011	$25.92 [20]	1.56%	$26.32
27	BP	Oil and gas	United Kingdom	2011	31 December 2011	$25.70 [21]	1.90%	$26.18
28	Chevron	Oil and gas	United States	2008	31 December 2008	$23.93 [22]	9.40%	$26.18
29	United Airlines	Airline	United States	2006	31 December 2006	$22.88 [23]	13.95%	$26.07
30	BP	Oil and gas	United Kingdom	2006	31 December 2006	$22.60 [24]	13.95%	$25.75
31	Industrial & Commercial Bank of China	Banking	China	2010	31 December 2010	$24.40 [25]	4.92%	$25.60
32	Citigroup	Banking	United States	2006	31 December 2006	$21.54 [15]	13.95%	$24.54
33	General Electric	Conglomerate	United States	2007	31 December 2007	$22.21 [26]	9.50%	$24.32
34	BHP Billiton	Mining	United Kingdom Australia	2011	31 December 2011	$23.65 [27]	1.90%	$24.10
35	Bank of America	Banking	United States	2006	31 December 2006	$21.13 [28]	13.95%	$24.08
36	Gazprom	Oil and gas	Russia	2006	31 December 2006	RUB 552.4 [29]	13.95%	$23.91
37	BP	Oil and gas	United Kingdom	2008	31 December 2008	$21.67 [24]	9.40%	$23.71
38	General Electric	Conglomerate	United States	2006	31 December 2006	$20.74 [26]	13.95%	$23.63
39	Microsoft	Software	United States	2011	31 June 2011	$23.15 [30]	1.87%	$23.58
40	ExxonMobil	Oil and gas	United States	2000	31 December 2000	$17.7 [31]	32.16%	$23.39
41	Vale	Mining	Brazil	2011	31 December 2011	$22.89 [32]	1.90%	$23.32
42	BP	Oil and gas	United Kingdom	2007	31 December 2007	$21.17 [24]	9.50%	$23.18
43	Royal Dutch Shell	Oil and gas	Netherlands UK	2004	31 December 2004	$18.54 [8]	20.84%	$22.40
44	Gazprom	Oil and gas	Russia	2009	31 December 2009	RUB 634.1 [11]	6.49%	$22.30
45	Citigroup	Banking	United States	2003	31 December 2003	$17.85 [15]	24.77%	$22.28
46	Samsung	Conglomerate	Republic of Korea	2010	2010	$21.2 [33]	4.92%	$22.24
47	Petrochina	Oil and gas	China	2010	31 December 2010	RMB 139.99 [34]	4.92%	$22.21
48	Gazprom	Oil and gas	Russia	2007	31 December 2007	RUB 492.7 [29]	9.50%	$22.01
49	Royal Dutch Shell	Oil and gas	Netherlands UK	2010	31 December 2010	$20.47 [35]	4.92%	$21.48
50	China Construction Bank	Banking	China	2010	31 December 2010	RMB 134.84 [17]	4.92%	$21.40
51	Petrochina	Oil and gas	China	2011	31 December 2011	RMB 132.96 [34]	1.90%	$21.29
52	Total S.A.	Oil and gas	France	2007	31 December 2007	EUR 13.18 [36]	9.50%	$21.24
53	Petrobras	Oil and gas	BRA	2010	31 December 2010	$20.06 [37]	4.92%	$21.04
54	BP	Oil and gas	United Kingdom	2004	31 December 2004	$17.26 [38]	20.84%	$20.86
55	AT&T	Telecommunications	US	2010	31 December 2010	$19.86> [39]	4.92%	$20.84
56	Petrobras	Oil and gas	BRA	2008	31 December 2008	$18.88 [37]	9.4%	$20.65
57	Ford Motor Company	Automotive	United States	2011	31 December 2011	$20.22 [40]	1.90%	$20.60
58	Citigroup	Banking	United States	2004	31 December 2004	$17.05 [15]	20.84%	$20.60
59	Petrobras	Oil and gas	BRA	2011	31 December 2011	$20.12 [37]	1.9%	$20.50
60	Volkswagen Group	Automotive	GER	2011	31 December 2011	€15.41 [41]	1.90%	$20.33
61	China Mobile	Telecommunications	China	2011	31 December 2011	RMB 125.87 [42]	1.90%

Are earnings the same as profit on that chart?

Here's a really quick explanation on who's making the money...it can be tracked further.

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxes-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/

Yeah, the column labeled 'earnings' equates to profits, not income.

I think not. I think that is the percentage change in profit from the previous earnings report, not the percentage of profit for that reporting period.

Does it really matter?

I like big oil.

I like being able to jump in a car and drive.

I like having gas stations all over the place.

I don't care if the CEO of a company makes $400 million a year.

How many jobs out there are dependent on gasoline?

No, you are misreading the chart and my comment. The percentage in the chart just shows the conversion to dollars at a specific later time so that the amounts can be reasonably compared. My response to Kramarat's question and AFAIK Kramarat's question were not related to the percentages in the chart, merely whether or not 'earnings' meant 'income' or 'profit'.

Okay.

Let's see 10 billion in profit every quarter? That's lots of petroleum.

Yeah, but it takes over $100 billion of investment to see that rate or return.

Simply pointing out a profit of $10 billion is misleading without stating the whole story.

The whole story is that at $40 billion a year in profit, it only takes 2.5 years to recover the initial $100 billion.

Pretty sweet ROI if you ask me. Let's not forget government giveaways tax breaks and subsidies either.

Sorry, my numbers were wrong. Exxon only averages about 8% profit per year.

So, if they had $40b in profit, then their total net income would have to be closer to $500 billion, of which $40 billon is profit and $460 billion would be the cost to do business (wages, taxes, costs of operation, research, etc.).

In down to earth terms, you could own your own business that nets 1/2 million dollars a year in revenue and that sounds really exciting until after you pay all the business expenses and find out your real annual income is $40,000 (about 8%).

However, if you still feel that Exxon is raking in the dough, then buy stock in the company. 8% is not a really high rate of return compared to other investments, but it is a pretty consistent and safe rate of return.

Help me understand that chart. What percentage (annually) of net income is actually profit (profit margin)?

It looks like the percentage points listed are simply the delta or change from the previous report, but I may be wrong.

This link Maybe I did not make my claim clear, but the link should establish what I was trying to say - that Big Oil does not generate obscene profits, but Big Government gets the lion's share.

The percentages in the chart are just the calculated inflation to bring the terms to today's dollars for equal comparison.

.

I contributed the information in part because your claim that 'If you look at the public earnings records for oil companies you will see that they actually perform lower than most free enterprise businesses.'.

.

Oil companies have had the majority of the largest quarterly and annual earnings in history. It is every other free enterprise business that has actually performed lower.

.

If you intended to suggest that oil companies require even larger gross revenue to make those record earnings (i.e. the earnings to revenue ratio is relatively low) then you are probably right.

If you intended to suggest that oil companies require even larger gross revenue to make those record earnings (i.e. the earnings to revenue ratio is relatively low) then you are probably right.

Bingo!

Reminds me of one of our OT conversations in the break room, about how greedy McDonald's is. They make a lot of money, but they have to sell a hell of a lot of meals to get there. Not much profit in a single menu item.

"Oil companies have had the majority of the largest quarterly and annual earnings in history. It is every other free enterprise business that has actually performed lower."

I don't think that your chart proves that because it merely reflects the change in percentage of earnings from the previous report.

If you sell $1000 on eBay last year and $2000 this year, your increase is 100%, but is says nothing as to how much money you made after you paid for those goods and the expense of selling them.

You wrote, "If you intended to suggest that oil companies require even larger gross revenue to make those record earnings (i.e. the earnings to revenue ratio is relatively low) then you are probably right."

Exactly right. People buy stock in oil companies not because they return huge returns (they don't), but that they are generally very consistent with their annual returns, which means it is a safe conservative investment for those of us getting up in the years (low risk).

You can find mutual funds and stock that pay at least that much and more, but your risk goes up. Great investment for young investors that can take a loss if things go wrong and still recover.

The whole argument that oil companies make obscene profits is disingenuous because it only highlights the total revenues for those companies, but fails to explain the total costs to run that corporation (all expenses, wages, taxes, research, etc.). When you compare the total revenues minus all costs incurred the percentage of profit is not obscene, but somewhat anemic compared to other types of business.

The same problem exists for those "big" drug companies that political groups like to villainize. However, many people just believe it because they never research those claims.

No. You are still misreading the chart. There is no change in percentage of earnings on the chart. Calm down, take a breath, read what is actually written, not just what you imagine I am attacking you with. (I am not attacking you, btw).

Can you give me a link to where the chart came from?

I would like to understand it better.

Of course.

Thanks. So it is the largest corporate annual gains over a previous earning's report that the table represents.

Makes sense.

Where are you getting this part about 'over a previous earning's report'???

.

That would, by the way, suggest that the profits were even larger, if the chart was just showing the gains over the previous (assuming the previous was positive).

"This page lists the largest annual and quarterly earnings and losses in corporate history."

Obviously, in order to have a loss or gain implies that the earnings changed, which implies that it was different at a previous time in the past.

The logical conclusion is that it must be compared to the previous annual report because the reports are made annually.

Earnings and losses are compared to zero not to previous. If in 1999 a company earned 1.1 billion dollars and then in 2000 it earned 1.2 billion dollars, the gain in 2000 is 1.2 billion dollars, not 100 million.

.

Are you perhaps thinking of something along the lines of assets or retained earnings?

.

The percentages on the chart, just so that it is clear reflect the adjustment to a standard dollar so that the comparison can easily be made.

I followed the links to the actual report, and that profit is not just on oil; they have a massive chemical division, as well as coal, gas, and even solar. They also use those profits to pay dividends to the shareholders, as well as investing the money in future exploration and development.

They have good years and bad years, just like any other company. They're down 18% in the last quarter.

I guess I'm not seeing the greed...if that is the point.

The point is definitely not pointing out greed, though what exactly is the company focused on if not profit. I'm not disparaging the oil industry at all. I am merely pointing out that saying that the industry is somehow deficient in profits doesn't square well with reality. Oil companies hold most of the records for profits annually or quarterly and they hold almost none of the record losses quarterly or annually.

That wasn't what the chart I posted said. Exxon net profit was an average of 8 to 9% percent if you want to err on the high side. Other industries do much better net profits than that percentage, others can do worse.

From what you are saying it appears as if you are implying is that Exxon and other oil companies earn too much.

I am not going to argue semantics for the definition of "gain" as it has become a red herring to my original point, which is that oil company profits are mediocre in the bigger picture of all business.

I made no implication that Exxon was making too much. Just because I offer a correction to a statement you made defending an industry, does not mean I am criticizing that industry. It simply means I am offering a correction to your statement.

.

What you continue to fail to distinguish is a difference in net income (aka profit or gain) and the ratio of net income to revenue. Exxon is not mediocre in terms of net income, the profit it generates tops all others. In terms of profit expressed as a ratio of total revenue, then Exxon is less exceptional.

.

The chart you have posted does indeed offer comparisons to previous periods in percentages, no less. This is no indication that all (or even many) financial charts follow this format. You will be much better served by reading the fine print for any particular chart than continuing to assume all follow the format of a chart you once saw.

"Exxon is not mediocre in terms of net income, the profit it generates tops all others."

That's because they are a big company with about 77,000 employees.

Assign whatever reason to it you like; 77,000 employees, superior leadership, barriers to competition, whatever you see as the likely reason, so long as you now understand that in terms of net income Exxon (or the oil industry in general) is not mediocre.

Okay.

I kind of look at it like the way a movie star makes $20 million for a movie.

They get a tiny portion of each ticket sale, and the movie company hopes that they sell enough tickets, DVDs, etc. to cover the cost of the actors, production, and still have a profit left over.

I think a lot of people look at those earnings figures, and think they're insanely high.

But, (and maybe I'm wrong), doesn't both the movie studios, and the oil companies, have to use those earnings to finance future projects?

I guess they're doing okay, but the tax man sure gets a nice chunk of it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

On that first line on the chart....out of $178 billion in gross profit, they get to keep $44 billion, and the tax man gets $31 billion.

I'd rather be the tax man.

"If in 1999 a company earned 1.1 billion dollars and then in 2000 it earned 1.2 billion dollars, the gain in 2000 is 1.2 billion dollars, not 100 million."

Now think about what you just wrote.

If you earned $100,000 last year and this year you earned $110,000, you didn't gain $110,000, you earned $10,000 dollars more than last year for a gain of 10% (not 110%).

The term 'gain' is equivalent to 'profit'.

.

Look at the top four entries (Exxon 2005 - 2008) and think about what that would mean if the figures were not just the profit but the increase in profit over the last period. It would mean that in 2008 the true profit would have been closer to 160 billion. Doesn't it make more sense that Exxon profits grew slightly over the period rather than as an arithmetic progression?

.

The 'gain' is not in comparison to the amount gained in the last period. The 'gain' is the amount gained (not lost) over the course of the period, so it is in comparison to zero.

Well this is a rare occurrence!

I'm actually going to help debunk a conspiracy theory.

http://pesn.com/2012/05/01/9602085_VW_not_allowed_by_US_government_to_sell_high_mileage_cars_to_US_consumers/

Unless it's really tiny engines, in really tiny cars, that Americans have little interest in, the differences aren't that great.

Even with our special blends and mandated smog gear, ethanol is the next thing on the list for dropping mileage.

So what you are saying is that the 2013 Chevy Aveo diesel I am driving here in Turkey and getting some ~55 MPG's (4.1 l per 100 Km) with despite driving it like a stolen rental car isn't really getting ~55 MPG?

Or are you saying I can get one in the US even though it and it's Turkish options it has are nowhere to be found on the Chevy website?

What about the mid sized Ford Ranger Diesel pickups that I see all over here that I have never ever seen in the US?

The thing is as I am getting to know people here that are the average working type people every one of them knows of someone who has an imported American vehicle that is set up for American emissions compliance and it's a total fuel pig compared to its non US emissions rated twins.

So how does that work? Am I not really seeing what I am seeing or hearing what I am hearing from average people who have no reason whatsoever to lie to me?

There are pollution controls in the US that cost mileage, not to mention weight added by our mandated safety features.

One of the points that the link makes, is that a gallon is 20% bigger over there...so there's 20% more MPG.

I don't think anyone is lying, and there's no doubt that we could get better mileage if we weren't so addicted to safety and pollution features. But it's not entirely a government conspiracy.

But I am doing my calculations based on 1 Km being .621 miles and one liter being .264 of a standard American gallon.

That's how I got roughly 55 MPG US equivalent from the cars averaged readout of 4.1 l per 100 Km.

On the apples to apples comparison I am driving the crap out of this little car and still getting way high MPG numbers by US standards!

Pollution controls are exactly what causes the decrease in efficiency, which really is ironic. A system that tries to limit emission by causing more emissions is quintessential government folly.

.

Note the article shows that even in US gallons, what is available to consumers over there for efficiency blows away what is available over here.

.

'.... European spec Volkswagen Passat BlueMotion TDI set a new Guinness World Record for the greatest distance traveled by a production passenger car on a single tank of fuel. (Story) It went 1,531 miles on a single tank of diesel. Its overall fuel economy calculates to about 75 US miles per gallon....'

Well dammit...I tried to defend the US government, and it's looking like I failed.

It's like that recent thread where the guy was wondering why there wasn't a tuner for his car.

I didn't post to the thread, but I was thinking, "Why wouldn't the manufactures set the computers to get the best possible mileage?"

I think AH may have been talking about the profit margin per unit of gasoline, which is puny compared to what the government takes.

We could track down these mileage differences and what causes them, but we already know where it will lead....politics and politicians.