bigcat said:
i wasnt around for the 70's gas crisis, but i think it is all
there was not a real gas shortage then, and there is not one now, the oil companies are gouging us at record rates!!!!! just imagine, a 4 cyl turbo mustang again!!!!
Oh man... You had to bring this up bigcat.
Please note my economic dissertation in this thread if you have not already came across it by shear accident.
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=573751
And here was my final gasket blow... Hahahahahaha
Goldenpony,
Like most I feel that the long-term aspect of this arrangement is being overlooked. But, like most things, consumers are short-sighted for the most part and are unable to look past their own circumstances. The proverbial, who cares? It doesn't impact my life.
Is BP a high rated gasoline that is cleaner and removes the majority of engine deposits? According to their research and filing with the EPA, yes. That is one of my concerns. Can a car manufacturer mandate a specific brand of gasoline to be used in their car? No. As of today. Is this a future potential. Yes. How large of a probable scenario? I have no idea.
But with with BP being THE LARGEST petroleum conglomerate in the United States, they are well ahead of the game.
Is it a big deal. No. Does it bother me. Yes. I have read the entire text of the Clean Air Act and the subsequent repeals and amendments as provided under the Magnuson-Moss Act. This bothers me in that I do not like a reduction in competition in consumer product availability, in an already tight market , much less a large manufacturer recommending it. We are not talking about a clothing manufactuer recommending Woolite, here.
Again, the intent of the information is to have people think. If you don't want to think outside the short-term aspects of life, I am okay with that. I am plagued with the need to understand my world and how it impacts not only me, but my son and my later years. BP is at a cruical apex of inventing methods to aid in the reduction of greenhouse emissions. They started the first carbon-free reintroduction oil refining process at Miller Field in the North Sea. They work hard to be a responsible and environmentally friendly company; however, the macro-economics involved in their conglomerations and economic and scientific advisory panels here in the United States at multiple large scale University, takes them one step closer to showing that their gas, IS THE GAS to help reduce portable greenhouse emissions issues.
Even with a loss of the refinery capabilities in Texas in march, BP still made a NET profit of 5,591 billion dollars or a NET profit of $23.42 per share for the second quarter of 2005. Interestingly to note, they bought back for treasury holding during the first half of 2005, 396 million of its own shares at a cost of $4.1 billion. So, they made a hefty profit from their own stock buy back. Net cash provided by operating activities for the quarter and half year was $6.7 billion and $16.1 billion, respectively, compared with $5.2 billion and $12.2 billion a year ago.
Compare these figures to 5 years ago and no matter how you slice it. The consumer is getting josted, and the fact that they have a large North Sea depository, thusly procluding them from the impact of OPEC influence, tastes even worse in my mouth.
Okay - So, maybe I do find this a big deal. LOL
Jenn
It has been, and probably always will be that way. Just like Ford not using the T-5, 4.10s with a S/C in the Stock GT. No reason to kill off the SVT line of vehicles. If they produced a stock V-6 with specification capability to the GT, there would be an inherint risk in killing off the GT, except for those who are adament in sticking with displacement and cylinder count. We can all recall the mid to late 70s substantial reduction in V-8s due to the gas crisis. History is doomed to repeat iteself unless we learn lessons from what happened in the past. 
