Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

1…7374767879

Comments

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Why would someone buy something like an Acura TL and support 55? Not exactly a low hp machine. A 4cyl mileage special is all you need.

    Might do that again. Had some very fine 4-cyl cars that were excellent, economical and fun to drive (responsibly). Last Satuday's WSJ had a test of the Honda Fit by their automotive writer/tester, Jeff Sabatini. After testing it, he asks if Fit is best car on the road at any price.

    If Obama brings back 55, Fit would be fine for twisties as well as regular commuting for good gas mileage.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    People need to stop whinning about 55.

    Well some people like Progress. ;) We've progressed from the early 20th century with its 15mph SL's and basic cars. I would only assume that people want to get places faster as we continue to make planes, trains, and ferries faster. I do not see - going slower or staying the same desireable.

    If people wanted to stay slow and really safe, they could all give up autos and walk, bike or ride a slow donkey.

    Personally I'd like a vehicle that could dive like a sub, and fly - (remember that mini-sub on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea?), and could drive around on land. Robbie the Robot could be the chauffeur on those times I wanted to entertain in Mile High Club lounge compartment. :)

    I have no interest in being any sort of a Minimalist.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    I find the Fit to have some appeal too (but I would rebadge it a Jazz the first day I had it)...maybe not something to take to a twisty road though.

    How is 55 a measure of responsibility when it is not embraced anywhere else, even in areas with safer roads than the US? How is a limit set so 40 year old semis could run with economy a measure of responsibility for people in 21st century cars? Competent modern cars like Acura TLs have no benefit at 55. I can average more than 10mph higher than that and get over 25mpg - in an E55!

    There's no logic behind it.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    "there is no need for extravagently high HP.

    Fine, if you're a flatlander, but what is needed to conquer the hills and mountains is much higher HP within a 60 mph speed limit.

    As most high school graduates can not sight read concert level music, peole are not qualified to drive at speeds higher than 60.

    The speed limit is dumbed down to the most average & mediocre ability and whinning for higher limits does not qualify you to be a better than average driver.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    Low speed limits exist for revenue creation.

    I find it endlessly amazing that drivers virtually everywhere else are trusted to exceed 60. Doesn't say much for the dying USA.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    drivers virtually everywhere else are trusted to exceed 60

    Per Wiki, US speed limits fall in line with most other countries, with the occasional exception like 50+% of the Autobahn. Speed limits by country
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    60 is less than most first world nations on that list, even nations like France and Denmark where many wouldn't expect higher speed driving.

    If an Orwellian nanny-state like England can have faster highways, why can't a land that basks in the claim of freedom and liberty?
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    No to mention that very few countries have the wide open expanses of interstates that we have in the US.

    I think 70-75 mph is a good fuel saving speed. 55 mph is asinine, beyond stupid. Even modern 4-cylinder cars can cruise at 80 mph serenely, safely and with power to spare.
  • cdn_tchcdn_tch Member Posts: 194
    I think 70-75 mph is a good fuel saving speed. 55 mph is asinine, beyond stupid. Even modern 4-cylinder cars can cruise at 80 mph serenely, safely and with power to spare.

    Here is a web page with a number of graphs plotting MPH vs. MPG
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    I don't disagree with the charts. I just think for me personally, at interstate speeds below 80 mph the time I lose is worth more to me than my savings in fuel. Everybody has their point. Otherwise we would all be cruising at maximum fuel economy speeds on the interstate - maybe 30-40mph according to the linked charts.
  • hammerheadhammerhead Member Posts: 907
    Maybe if we all drove less (stayed home once in awhile, combined errands, take the bus occasionally) we could save as much or more fuel than drooling along at 55. :confuse:

    55 was an almost arbitrary solution 35 years ago (see my earlier post regarding the origin of '55'). Surely we can do better than that now & keep traffic moving at pace.

    Cheers!
    Paul
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    While those plots may be accurate, they certainly are not representative of the type of vehicle in current use in the U.S. They are smaller, much less powerful engines. I would agree from experience that a car like my '82 Escort got it's best mpg around 50-55 mph. It had a 1.6L engine and I'd shift it into top-gear (4th) around 35mph.

    Now I have a Mazdaspeed 6 - 6 speed with an engine that can produce about 4X the power. I can't even get into top gear at 55 mph on any sort of hilly environment, and the car is not geared that tall.

    And here's the other thing - I'm happy with my mpg, if I wanted better mpg I wouldn't have bought the car I did and wanted to slow down. If I wanted better mpg I would have bought a car with higher mpg and still drove it faster than 55! :P
  • cdn_tchcdn_tch Member Posts: 194
    While those plots may be accurate, they certainly are not representative of the type of vehicle in current use in the U.S.

    Some are not sold in North America, most are (Toyota Prius, Golf GTI, Golf TDi, BMW 535, MB 180 Kompressor and Geo Metro). And the ones which are are much more representative of what is on the road than a Mazdaspeed.

    ALL curves show the same shape. Reason: wind resistance quadruples for each doubling of speed. To over come windresistance requires power, power comes from gasoline. A given curve may shift slightly to the right because of gearing but it will not change tha fact that the faster you go, the more fuel you will burn.

    You have made a choice that you can and want to afford lower MPG, but that does not make it a good choice for everyone since it is not just about the fuel used but the pollution that is created when it is burned.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    I thought the pollution problem was pretty well solved, and we were just worried about future energy sources and global warming now.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    And the ones which are are much more representative of what is on the road than a Mazdaspeed.

    The vehicles listed in that report are OLD. I think one was from the 1980's! I listed my car not to say it is typical, but to say that if someone wants better mpg, then they can choose a higher mpg model - not having to worry about driving an archaic 55mph. I don't know where you live, but I can honestly say I haven't seen any of the cars you listed in months.

    If you want to show graphs put up some real-world mpg ratings for the new 6-speed cars that are out - Malibu, Camry, 5-spd Corollas ...

    Reason: wind resistance quadruples for each doubling of speed. To over come windresistance requires power, power comes from gasoline.

    Yes but depending on what the number is, doubling it might not matter much. If you have 2% drag at 55mph and 3% at 65 mph then you haven't changed much. But if your cars gearing is 10% different between 5th and 6th gear then you end up with a net increase in fuel economy by going a speed in which you can stay in 6th gear.

    If it was simply aerodynamic drag that affects mpg, then similarly you would expect mpg to continue to increase as you went slower ... 45, 35, 25, 15mph? does a 30mpg car at 55mph, get 60 mpg at 15mph?

    So it is aerodynamics, gearing, engine rpms, weight, which all interact in the equation of what speed your car is going to run at to get optimum mpg. A 3-speed auto '75 Malibu and a 6-speed auto '09 malibu are not going to get optimum mpg at the same speed of 55mph.

    Also I don't see where you are going with the pollution thing, as cars emit very little pollution. With the amount of pollution put in the air by all the other sources in the world, man-made and natural, 1 mpg makes no difference. If you want to stop pollution you may have an issue, since the goal of the world economy is to expand.

    Population growth and world economic growth = increased waste products. I would like a world with less pollution, but it's not going to happen by me getting 35mpg or 20mpg, when there are billions of people striving to use more resources.
  • cdn_tchcdn_tch Member Posts: 194
    Some of the vehicles are old some are new, and the graph all follow the same curve. Go faster, use more fuel. The Greman graph is from 2006.

    Yes, aero drag is not the only thing since we have multi speed vehicles, but generally speaking they will all be in top gear by 55 MPH on flat ground. So, if we make the assumption that a given vehicle is in top gear at 55, we then look at what it costs (in HP) to go faster. Take an average sedan with a Cd of .3, total rolling weight of 3750 Lbs and a total frontal area of 22 sq ft, we get HP losses to aero drag of:

    55 MPH = 13 HP
    65 MPH = 19 HP
    75 MPH = 26.5 HP
    85 MPH = 36.5 HP

    Again, that horsepower must come from gasoline, you will burn more the faster you drive (once you are in top gear).

    Polution: NHTSA states that there are about 3 trillion vehicle miles driven per year. If we simplify the numbers and say that on average the sum of all vehicles driven average 30MPG, the savings in gasoline by increasing that to 31 MPG would be about 3.2 Billion gallons. So would a 1 mpg increase make a difference? I'd say that it would.
  • cdn_tchcdn_tch Member Posts: 194
    The German graph show an average MPG drop of 6 to 7 MPG when speeds increase from 60 MPH to 80 MPH
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    What about 45? Or 35? Think of all the gas and emissions saved!
  • cdn_tchcdn_tch Member Posts: 194
    What about 45? Or 35? Think of all the gas and emissions saved!

    Generally speaking, you would end up using more gas than at 65 since you would not be in the highest gear available. But the gas you'd save at 0 MPH... :D
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    The Greman graph is from 2006.

    I believe I know which you are referring to, but those are very small 4 cyl, and maybe diesel cars. They probably rev high, whuich is ineffficient. The U.S. mainly has large displacement low-revving engines at those same speeds. It is not compareable. I have had an '82 Escort which got lower mpg when pushed above 55-60mpg, I had an '88 Honda CrX which got 40mpg no matter what you did up to 70mph, and I had a 6-cyl. 5-speed '98 Camaro - the best mpg (35) I got on that was a 75mph trip on a highway.

    I agree with you and the graph that most cars will start taking hits in mpg above 75-80mph. But that is the individual's choice as to how much fuel to use. Every individual can buy as much fuel as their pocketbook allows. Burn it in an RV, ride in circles in a large boat on a lake, or vacation around the world.

    sum of all vehicles driven average 30MPG, the savings in gasoline by increasing that to 31 MPG would be about 3.2 Billion gallons. So would a 1 mpg increase make a difference? I'd say that it would

    No it doesn't. Why? See above for other ways people will use the fuel.
    Also if that oil is in the ground next year, it simply gets burnt next year, and turned into whatever pollution you worry about then. All the fuel eventually gets used! You can change the rate slightly yes, but not the end result.

    I'll enjoy my fuel right now thank you, and let the people who are used to riding bike (around the world) stay on their bikes and not get into cars.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    Simple remapping of shift points could put one in top gear at a lower speed. Think of everyone dawdling around at 45-50mph, safety and economy!
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Simple remapping of shift points could put one in top gear at a lower speed.

    No. The gear size and the torque of the engine determine the lowest speed at which you can run without lugging the engine. So you can't take many cars which are geared to run at 2,000 rpm at 70mph in the top gear, leave the gears alone, and remap the shiftpoints, so that you're in 6th gear at 1,200rpm at 45-50mph.

    My car which has a 4 cyl engine and should rev higher would be very unhappy in 6th gear at 45mph. I don't have to remap, I have a manual and I've tried it. The engine efficiency also is much better near the torque peak, which is another consideration, we discussed earlier. If you're running at low rpms the engine is operating inefficiently due to pumping losses.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    I think it's worked successfully in Europe and Montana.

    The idea that speed limits have a proper place in our society is archaic at best.

    It is no longer 1958, it is 2008, almost 2009, and speed limits should be abolished, and with all the savings in traffic enforcement, we could probably pay for all the research and development of alternative fuel sources ten-fold.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    "The lamp of experience illuminates the future." That being true - restrictions and conservative values dictate speed limits within the average drivers ability.

    Traffic volume screams for regulation making the opinion of no speed limit egregious. :mad:
  • cdn_tchcdn_tch Member Posts: 194
    I believe I know which you are referring to, but those are very small 4 cyl, and maybe diesel cars. They probably rev high, which is ineffficient. The U.S. mainly has large displacement low-revving engines at those same speeds.

    Most newer cars on the road today are under 4l displacement and would all rev under 2000 RPM at 60 MPH. The US still has high horsepower big blocks but they are not the norm. So the German graph is relevant to the US.

    ... I had a 6-cyl. 5-speed '98 Camaro - the best mpg (35) I got on that was a 75mph trip on a highway.

    A single trip on 1 tank is not a valid MPG result. There could be environmental factors (strong tailwind, downhill) or human factors (not filling the tank as full as the previous time) that can skew the results. What was your MPG in the Camaro over the period of a year?

    I agree with you and the graph that most cars will start taking hits in mpg above 75-80mph.

    No, they start taking a hit shortly (RPM wise) after getting into top gear.

    But that is the individual's choice as to how much fuel to use. Every individual can buy as much fuel as their pocketbook allows. Burn it in an RV, ride in circles in a large boat on a lake, or vacation around the world.

    Yes it is a choice that people can make, but just because a person can make a choice does not miraculously make it a good choice.

    ... vehicles driven average 30MPG, the savings in gasoline by increasing that to 31 MPG would be about 3.2 Billion gallons. So would a 1 mpg increase make a difference? I'd say that it would

    No it doesn't. Why? See above for other ways people will use the fuel.
    Also if that oil is in the ground next year, it simply gets burnt next year, and turned into whatever pollution you worry about then. All the fuel eventually gets used! You can change the rate slightly yes, but not the end result.

    Your logic is flawed here. You are saying that if I get a new car that will save a 100 gallons a year, that my neighbor will go out and do something to burn that 100 gallons that I am saving. I'd say that the amount of fuel burning activities will remain somewhat constant so what ever fuel consumption reduction is made will be a net reduction. And yes the fuel we save now will be burned in the future, but by spreading it out over a longer time frame there is less environmental damage.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    I was playing with him and giving a simple solution, as some here seem to want the most regressive, repressive, and illogical limits possible :P

    OK then, remap the tranny, modify the transaxle/rear end...slow everyone down so the paranoid can have their way.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    Restrictions and conservative values ensure a revenue stream for law enforcement...
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    cdn_tch: Again, that horsepower must come from gasoline, you will burn more the faster you drive (once you are in top gear).

    Most drivers aren't concerned, and for good reason. The extra safety, convenience and pleasure that comes from higher speeds on limited access highways are worth it. Speed limits should be set for safety, not to save gasoline.

    We don't need to turn the state and local police into the energy police. How people use their gasoline is their business.

    We've tried this approach in the 1970s and 1980s; it failed miserably; it's time to accept that and move on.

    cdn_tch: Polution: NHTSA states that there are about 3 trillion vehicle miles driven per year. If we simplify the numbers and say that on average the sum of all vehicles driven average 30MPG, the savings in gasoline by increasing that to 31 MPG would be about 3.2 Billion gallons. So would a 1 mpg increase make a difference? I'd say that it would.

    For new cars, volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions drop as speed increases, while nitrogen oxides emissions are less at 70 mph then they are at 10 mph. For carbon monoxide emissions, speed increases emissions, but new cars are so clean that the increase is negligible.

    For all three pollutants, the main problem is stop-and-go driving. That is what drives the big increase in emissions of those pollutants.

    Slowing people down on limited access highways in the name of reducing emissions is a waste of time and a misapplication of law enforcement resources, especially given that the truly gross polluters are clunkers (almost 50 percent of vehicular pollution is emitted by about 10 percent of vehicles).

    If you are really concerned about decreasing those pollutants, you would worry about improving and maintaining traffic flow, particularly in urban areas.

    Also note that unregulated gasoline powered engines - used in lawn mowers, snowblowers, etc. - pollute much worse than automobile engines. A 1998 car, for example, would have to drive 305 miles to put out as much carbon monoxide as a snowblower operated for one hour. And a 2008 car is even cleaner than the 1998 model.

    Sorry, but slowing people down in the name of pollution control is a waste of time, energy and money. Our air today is clean and getting cleaner, even with higher speeds, and will continue to do, even as people continue to drive at the safe, comfortable speeds of 75-80 mph.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    What was your MPG in the Camaro over the period of a year?

    I only took a couple of compareable long freeway journeys a year, so there is no comparision. Maybe 30mpg on my 2-lane 50mph 60-mile roundtrip commute of the time.

    No, they start taking a hit shortly (RPM wise) after getting into top gear.

    No. Do a little research on where gasoline engines run most efficiently. It is not necessarily at the lowest rpm.

    Yes it is a choice that people can make, but just because a person can make a choice does not miraculously make it a good choice.

    "Good" is subjective; it depends on your goal, which may not be the goal of your collective. ;)

    You are saying that if I get a new car that will save a 100 gallons a year, that my neighbor will go out and do something to burn that 100 gallons that I am saving.

    Well if your conservation causes the cost of oil to drop, then that oil certainly becomes more tempting to use. Personal example - if oil is $4/gal I use electric and wood, if oil is $2.50 I burn the oil. Similarly people are driving a little more now then just a few months ago.

    And yes the fuel we save now will be burned in the future, but by spreading it out over a longer time frame there is less environmental damage.

    Bulloney. As an engineer, knowing quite a bit of physical chemistry and thermodynamics I can assure you, you end up with the same increase in entropy and the same by-products in the same quantities. You also must be ignoring the fact that with increasing populations, and a larger population globally using oil and gasoline, individual conservation does not stop consumption-growth. When you and the UN find a way to stop everyone in the world from using more let me know; and then maybe I'll consider using less too.

    But on the other hand the reason I come to work everyday is so I can purchase the fuel I want to stay warm and to use anyway I want, whether you think it good or not. Someday I hope to own a Viper. :P
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    75 to 80 % of drivers are not comfortable with the psuedo expert drivers going that speed. 75-80 mph is not safe because of the careless who's opinion of their driving skills exceed their natural abilities.

    Leave earlier, drive safely, arrive with less tension having been endured. We all will be better citizens for it.

    Why are those who advocate higher speeds the ones who are least qualified to handle those speeds? :confuse:
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Good grief. If you can't drive safely at 75-80, you need to get a bus pass.
  • cdn_tchcdn_tch Member Posts: 194
    Most drivers aren't concerned, and for good reason.
    Most drivers aren't concerned because they don't think about it. They'll complain about how much it costs to fill their tank and then peel out of the gas station.

    The extra safety, convenience and pleasure that comes from higher speeds on limited access highways are worth it.
    Pleasure, yes, I'll agree with that; Convenience, doubtful; Extra safety, no, speed increases risk.

    Speed limits should be set for safety, not to save gasoline.
    It isn't an either or, it could be both.

    For new cars, volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions drop as speed increases, while nitrogen oxides emissions are less at 70 mph then they are at 10 mph.
    Comparing 10 mph to 70 mph in this discussion is irrelevant. What are the stats on 60 vs 70 vs 80 mph? Also where is the information from? Please provide a link so we can all learn.

    For carbon monoxide emissions, speed increases emissions, but new cars are so clean that the increase is negligible.
    With 3 Trillion vehicle miles driven, the increase ends up being substantial.

    Also note that unregulated gasoline powered engines - used in lawn mowers, snowblowers, etc. - pollute much worse than automobile engines. A 1998 car, for example, would have to drive 305 miles to put out as much carbon monoxide as a snowblower operated for one hour. And a 2008 car is even cleaner than the 1998 model.
    Yes, unregulated gasoline powered engines do pollute more but that does not make it OK to pollute more with a car.

    Sorry, but slowing people down in the name of pollution control is a waste of time, energy and money.
    I have not advocated slowing down for pollution control. I just made the point that if we slow down, not only do we increase safety, but reduce emissions as well.
  • hammerheadhammerhead Member Posts: 907
    Cool. If you're not comfortable driving that fast, don't.
    But please stay in the right lane so those of us that choose to can do so safely & enjoy it more.

    Cheers!
    Paul
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    Dawdling down a wide open road at a coerced unnaturally low speed is not a way to reduce tension :sick:

    Why are so many other developed nations able to handle 75-80, but not Americans?

    Why are those who preach freedom and liberty the ones who become pseudo-authoritarians when it comes to speed limits, and why do said people who completely lack credentials believe they can judge driving ability? :lemon:
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    "Why are so many other developed nations able to handle 75-80, but not Americans?

    And those numerous nations are..............

    Why are those who preach freedom and liberty the ones who become pseudo-authoritarians when it comes to speed limits, and why do said people who completely lack credentials believe they can judge driving ability?

    Experience under all conditions enable discernment of selfish driving styles.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    If you can't drive safely at 75-80, you need to get a bus pass.

    Yes on a multilane interstate, driving at 75-80 mph is the same skill level as driving at 55-60mph. You point the car straight, with slight turns of the wheel. Interstate driving is actually the safest and easiest, you'll find.

    And for those that say people can't do that, in my neck of the woods - NorthEast - that is what people are driving on the interstates now. All I want is to make the current driving legal.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    According to the link Steve posted, nations with major highways at 75mph (120 kmh) or more are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, CZR, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iran, Ireland, South Korea, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
    Turkey, and Zimbabwe. And even the psychotic Orwellian nanny state of Great Britain has a 70mph limit, which is an insane speed in the eyes of some here.

    Experience under all conditions can also discern when some favor a speed which is simply illogical and regressive.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    that have not caused any at-fault accidents in over 5 years. There is no need to enforce speed limits on safe drivers, as they are not the ones causing accidents.

    75-80 is a reasonable speed limit even for people that are older than the speed limit. For most people, the interstate/freeway/highway maximum speed limit should be 85.

    Slowing down does not make anything safer. Slowing down does not reduce your risk of getting into an accident. However, if you do get into an accident, reducing your speed will lessen the severity of that accident. So by that logic, we should design our airplanes to fly 55 MPH in the air so that if there is a bad landing or takeoff people won't die?
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    we should design our airplanes to fly 55 MPH

    Alternatively, we could just train our car and truck drivers as well as pilots are trained.
  • hammerheadhammerhead Member Posts: 907
    Steve has hit the proverbial nail smack-dab on the proverbial head:

    Train our drivers to a standard that makes interstate driving 'at speed' a non-event. No pass, no drive. Raise the bar.

    Cheers!
    Paul
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    I agree, raising the bar and having a driver's license mean something substantial other than identification would be a good revelation for this country.

    The driver's tests in CA are a joke.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    "regressive" is preferred to "agressive" & for those who prefer driving agressively at 80 mph, do it in the countries listed by Steve and while over there, apply for citizenship and stay there.

    It is rude to expect others to get out of your way by keeping right of where you want to go agressively.

    Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. - Eric Hoffer
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Of course, you can get a general aviation sport license with a driver's license and 20 hours of flight training (i.e., a long weekend) and cause all sorts of havoc with your lawnmower powered ultralight.
  • maverickjmaverickj Member Posts: 16
    i don't think its driving the 75-80 that's the problem. i think people just need to be cautious of their surrounding drivers. 75-80 is a fine speed to drive when not many cars are on the highway, but I think it is ridiculous to try and do the same and swerve in and out of lanes to do so. If the situation permits one to drive in that way, so be it! If it doesn't then obviously drive accordingly. I know that's the problem with speed limits. If they are high, then drivers assume that this is the speed they should be going at ALL times. there are factors we can' control and therefore are forced to drive slower. i guess in LA, the speed limit is the most irrelevant thing ever!!! to go the max. speed is something Angelinos are happy enough with!
  • cdn_tchcdn_tch Member Posts: 194
    Yes on a multilane interstate, driving at 75-80 mph is the same skill level as driving at 55-60mph. You point the car straight, with slight turns of the wheel. Interstate driving is actually the safest and easiest, you'll find.

    I guess this is where we differ on what is 'safe'.

    Your definition is being able to follow the road at speed and not drive into the ditch.

    My definition is that both the car and driver are capable of handling the speed when something goes wrong. Yes just about any imbecile can point a car in a straight line and do 80+ mph. Unfortunately there are precious few who have a feeling for the car they are in and would slow down if they had a sense that the car was losing downforce and starting to create lift, or realize that should a deer or other wildlife come up on the roadway how to best avoid a serious accident.

    Airline pilots are trained in many worst case scenarios so they have the ability to get out of trouble. Airplanes are also certified for speed, and cars should be as well, not just how fast can it go, but rather how fast can it go with in its design specs (brakes, handling, aerodynamics).
  • maverickjmaverickj Member Posts: 16
    i couldn't help but create my own in reponse to the 4 dollar discussion. I am currently pay 2.35 but I am always looking to pay less and save money any way I can.

    i started using the program Safeway and its sister sites (vons, genuardis, dominicks) have created. Every time you use your Safeway card, you earn gas rewards! Im not a huge shopper but even the smallest rewards helped me out !
    Has anyone tried this?
    if so, how much did you save???

    oh yeah, btw they have a site where you enter your zip to see if the store near you is participating!!!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    Regressive is the opposite of progressive, and driving 75-80 - speeds accepted by hundreds of millions of fellow humans on appropriate roads - has nothing to do with being "aggressive"...but nice deflection. Of course, one can't expect much progress from the irrelevant unwashed old crony capitalist pseudo-intellectuals of Clark county, the silent generation that has betrayed the world.

    It is rude to impede the progress of others driving a completely reasonable speed, and insane to believe you have the means to do so. Keep your tired old sled in the right lane and let the people of today go past - this is where your recourse ends. The slow and backwards will keep right or wish they had.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    drivers ignore the speed limit regardless of what it says. People will drive the speed that is reasonable, safe, and comfortable to them no matter what a sign with numbers on it says. The study was done on a 2 lane road where the speed limit was adjusted from an archaic 35 MPH to 45 MPH. The average speed of cars with the previous speed limit was about 46 MPH and 95% broke the "law." After the speed limit was adjusted the average speed of vehicles became 44 MPH and a majority of drivers were within the "law's" parameters.

    Therefore, increasing speed limits does not automatically mean the speed of traffic will increase.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,143
    I drive on a road like that every day. It's a long stretch of suburban arterial, posted at 30(!)/35/40 at random points - at one end it starts at 30, then up to 35, then 40. Traffic moves at about 40 (a reasonable speed for the route) over the entire stretch, unless LLCs cause a little chaos.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    there are precious few who have a feeling for the car they are in and would slow down if they had a sense that the car was losing downforce and starting to create lift,

    You're kidding right? Please post a link - like Consumer reports stating vehicles are having hazardous lift at 80mph.
    It's about 1,000,000 times more likely that someone will have a problem controlling their car on ice or snow then just driving down the road at 80mph. If you were going to put ay effort into improving people's driving skills, it would be on snow and ice.

    or realize that should a deer or other wildlife come up on the roadway how to best avoid a serious accident.

    I've known somebody that had a deer run into the side of the car, and my boss who hit one at 45mph and had no time to react. Deer are unpredictable, stupid and fast, which makes driving skills rather irrelevant. The stability control and ABS of vehicles allow drivers to maintain control in those cases where some avoidance maneuver is possible. Those systems act faster and better than any human can, and no great skill is needed; but the deer might move the same way you go.

    Airline pilots are trained in many worst case scenarios so they have the ability to get out of trouble.

    Are you inferring that many years of driving experience counts for nothing?

    Airplanes are also certified for speed, and cars should be as well,

    Airplanes and cars are designed and tested in much the same way. Most auto manufacturers have testing facilities, and cars designed for high speeds are tested for high speeds. Sports cars carry larger, more powerful brakes, and many cars now are equipped with certified H, V, or Z tires. I have no qualms that my Mazda couldn't run safely at full speed if on an appropriate Autobahn or track.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles