Not too sure if it accurate, found an article from 2005 that states the last refinery was made 29 years prior ( 1976 ).

The same article has a section ( again not verify with other sources and this is from 2005 ):
If this is true from 1981 to 2005, the number of refineries went from over 300 to 149, and the output only dropped 10%.

Maybe the regulatory part of the business is easier on less locations ?

My guess they hit the wall with efficiencies at a refining site, and now new sites are needed.
Oil refining in CA had put to additives in gas for state EPA requirements, and these upgrades cost millions of dollars, and later CA changed direction and this could no longer be used ( few more million in changes ).

The NIMBY movement and regulatory constraints make building a new refinery a huge task, and some companies do not want to take on.

Why take a chance that could cause a huge hit to the bottom line, when the companies are refining oil today ?
The oil companies are vilified for what they do to the environment and some of the same people that do this, complain they there is not enough capacity. The same person probably complains when the fund in their 401(k) is not performing well enough, and it is due to BP's stock taking a hit due to EPA fines or due to taking a huge write down due to building something.

Refining companies cannot win any way, the general public have come to expect instant perfection, and the real world does not work that way.

Not really true.
Look to the 1981 Chrysler K-car, it was 26-41 for a compact-to-midsize car.
The 1995 Honda Accord was 22-28 for a midsize car.
The highway might be high 20s to low 40s comparison, but the cars were light years apart ( these numbers were "corrected" to the EPA criteria is what the web page had as a disclaimer ).
The 1981 K car was a sheet metal box on wheels, that a high school track athlete could out accelerate on a 10 speed bike ( A 00's and newer F-150 has to be able to out accelerate one by at least a truck length ).

If you want to get into the sub compact specs, look to the 1989 Geo Metro, 43 - 51. Around here when fuel was over 4.00 per gallon, people were quick to buy these things up, fix them and sell them as a solution. And people paid good money for one of these road bound gym shoes.

In the mid / late 80s I think it was Suzuki that made a Geo metro looking thing that got 30 mpg, it had a 3 cylinder engine.

I will say my '06 compared to my '81. I seem to recall getting in the low teens on it ( it was a F-150 custom std cab I-6 300, sheet metal roof, vinyl bench and that was about it ) and my '06 with a tune gets 14 with mostly city driving as all around mpg.
Compare the HP & TQ delta between those 2 F-150s I owned, decades apart.

 

I'm not saying those 1980's cars could get out of their own way with their 3hp Briggs and Stratton motors!

The point is there were cars that got gas mileage that put cars like the Prius to shame available 20+ years ago. You would think they could have improved that by now.

Case in point is the Honda CRX. I had one of these as my first car and it was pretty cool. Granted in reading the article I have attached below I guess it was a good thing I didn't get into a fender bender with this buggy!!

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/auto...c_hf/index.htm

The problem is that we want 750 HP and 100 MPG and it doesn't add up I guess!

 

1depd, a Sentra is not a midsize car. SSCULLY, a K-car got 41 mpg in your wildest dreams. That was the totally unrealistic EPA figure from that era. Anything over 30 was pure luck.

Suzuki built the Chevy Sprint and Geo Metro, and the best mileage I've ever seen out of one of those was 42 at 55 mph on the highway. It was a 48 hp 1 liter 3 cylinder. I had a Ford Festiva, and NEVER saw 40.

 

I understand that. It is a subcompact. The point of my post is that the ratings listed it as being able to get 30-40 mpg. Even with how underpowered it was I was unable to get anything close to that in the real world, and that was in a subcompact. It would only be more difficult in a larger mid-sized car.

 

Not in my wildest dreams, that was the spec I got off Wiki, and would be the BS mpg numbers from back then.
We had a 181, and I do seem to recall it got low 20s overall ( mostly city / rural driving ). Not sure where you got the over 30 was not to been seen from.
Dad had to watch ever cent back them ( the late 70s and the pull out of the hole early 80s ) so he calculated it ever tank.
If the driving habits changed ( mpg dropped ), someone had some 'splaining to do Lucy'.
I am recalling 23 mpg for the mixed driving when new.
There was not where near the stop and go traffic and the number of signal lights increased 5x where they still live at ( since '75 ), so that helped.

The others are from the fueleconomy.gov site, and I stand corrected, the 1985 to 2007 models were corrected to the 2008 standard.

The MS/SO had a Geo and I think she said it consistently got 42 or 45 back and forth DTW to ORD and that was with a CEL illuminated. She could never get it fixed ( prior to me ) and got an IL EPA waiver on it for spending enough money on trying to fix it.
She traded it in on '07 G6, which she gets worse mpg than the Geo did on the same trip. Site above it is 20-30 w/ the 2.4L.
The geo, Fred Flintsonting it would cut 0.9 seconds off the 0-60.

Can't say about the Ford, the site above lists a 1990 Festiva as 27-30 for the auto and 30-37 for the 5 speed ( 2008 corrected numbers ).
The 1985 Ford Escort ( 1.6L ) is listed as 29-39 ( 2008 corrected numbers ) for the 4 speed.

Aside from the K-car, the specs are all from the .gov site above. This is the only way to do an apples to apples comparison. The K-car was real work from what I am recalling, I'll try to remember to ask dad, and see if I am correct.

EDIT : asked dad today, the Kcar got 21 to 22.8 city / rural. The best it got highway was 34 new on a 4 lane road on a trip to WI. In its age, it got 28 highway, and the city was in the 19-20 range. So that is the advertised rate back in the day when down hill with a tail wind.

 

What I don't understand is why we haven't moved away from gasoline, and started producing primarily diesel fueled powered automobiles. If we would have done that decades ago, who says we would be in this "fuel crisis" now. Maybe, maybe not. You can still get a fair amount of HP using diesel, and get the fuel mileage one wants.
I'm pretty sure someone can explain this to me.

 

Emissions have always been the issue with diesels. Also they don't start very easyy in cold climates. Europe pretty much uses them exclusively. I think the new Festiva which isn't a bad car gets 65 MPG in its diesel form.

If we used more diesel it would be cheaper in the long run. GM tried rolling some diesels out in the early 80s but they were all crap and knocked like someone hitting the hood with a hammer.

 

Clean diesel technology.

http://www.dieselforum.org/meet-clea...el-environment

Dirty old diesel is a thing of the past. Treehuggers need to get over themselves and live in the now.

 

Just about every car maker has rolled out diesel engines for their cars. Americans, for the most part, don't want diesels. If nobody buys them the manufacturers will stop building them.

 

I would be loath to suggest that K-Mac (once again) got his facts mixed up, but he does. He's conveniently forgotten that a few minor changes in the regulatory climate have also affected the automobile in this country. As has already been said, the EPA didn't have a really good handle (standard) on fuel mileage, so many manufacturers took full advantage of the holes in it and came up with some pretty amazing (and never attained) numbers.

A few other things have changed though. Take for instance safety. Remember the Pinto? (A driveable Webber grill.) Do you have airbags, side guard door beams and numerous other safety features built into your car today? Did you have any of that stuff back in the 70's? (A bong does not count as a safety device.) All of this stuff has added weight to today's cars which works against fuel economy.

If K-Mac really wants to drive a Geo Metro so he can get 50+ MPG, I think a few of us Conservative leaning members would be more than willing to buy one and stuff him in it.

 

I got stuck with a rental Geo Metro once. This was in Tucson, AZ, which is well above sea level.

And not just any Metro - It was a 5 Door Automatic.

I'll take a Pinto (had two of them) any day over that Metro.

Seriously, if you were attempting to keep up with city traffic, you had to keep the pedal to the floor. Loaded city busses would be up your tailpipe leaving a red light (no joke).

And I was driving solo. Put in 3 more passengers and some luggage, and that car would have been truly unsafe, IMO. I'm sure the 5 speed 3 door was MUCH faster than the dog I got stuck with.

 

My fat *** would have to be greased up pretty good to get into one of those rides!!!

No I realize that cars are a lot safer compared to the old days. Safety features included making them out of 20 tons of steel. If you got a small car, you could bend over and kiss your bass goodbye in an accident.

Still you would think that somewhere along the line...just maybe...some better efficiency would have been found?

I hear you about the MPG standards. I had an 85 Daytona turbo that claimed to get 35 MPG. Maybe I drove it like I stole it but I averaged about 11 MPG!

Americans just haven't caught on to diesels. I don't know if it is because it has mainly been VWs and Benz' with diesels or what?

I know diesel is cleaner today but I could be wrong...they still aren't quite up there with gas engine...certainly not hybrids/electric cars (ok the electric ones are a joke but still)!!!

 

BTW...I found me a Geo Metro you all can get me!!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1991-...ht_1650wt_1165

Just send me the $5k cash though...I wouldn't want to burden you all by having you guys deliver it to me!

 

Today's diesels are very clean, but the emission controls to make them clean have killed the mileage, as has the ultra low sulfur fuel.

 

For once I agree with Serotta! That's why no one checked the oil. A shortage of DIPSTICKS! Definitely no shortage in DC. They're ALMOST all dipsticks, on both sides of the isle. Whatever happened to public service service as it was in the early days of this country, when it was a SACRIFICE? Spend a couple of years in Washington helping run the country for the good of the people and then return to what you were doing for a living back home before you came to Washington. I'm not a Democrat, but that's one thing I have come to respect about Harry Truman, he did it for the good of the country, not for power or personal enrichment. He and his wife DROVE THEMSELVES back to Missouri to live in the same house they left when he came to Washington. Whether I agree with everything he did or not, I came to have TOTAL respect for the man. No enrichment, just true public service. (and unlike some, he didn't cart off all the WH china and silverware either!)