Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

cdn_tch · November 2008

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.
Aerodynamic forces change with speed, and I've experienced it. It is not that the car starts flipping over backwards (a la Le Mans), but rather that you can feel the car getting very light in the front.

The deer was just an example, not a statement of the only unexpected thing that can happen on the road. Many things can happen, and most people will panic when confronted with an emergency and no amount of technology can make up for that.

Are you inferring that many years of driving experience counts for nothing?
Nope, I'll state it without reservation. As a friend said in an unrelated conversation, "you have 2 people in the same job for 30 years, one has 30 years experience, but the other has 1 years experience 30 times". This holds for drivers as well.

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.
The manufacturers test their vehicles, yes, the tires have maximum speed ratings, yes, but the cars are not certified to run at any given speed. There are many cars that if you hold down the gas pedal far enough for long enough, they will go 80 or 90 mph, but at that speed they are running close to flat out. Do you believe a car like that should spend 6+ hours on the interstate/autobahn at that speed?

stever · November 2008

My sister does that too.

I go to my local Albertsons and usually save about three cents a gallon swiping their car in the pump - it's not related to grocery purchases. The Fred Meyer has an even better price and doesn't require purchases or an affinity card, but they are too far away from my neighborhood.

Some gas credit cards have price rebates but I haven't checked any of them out.

kernick · November 2008

There are many cars that if you hold down the gas pedal far enough for long enough, they will go 80 or 90 mph, but at that speed they are running close to flat out.

Do you live in Khazakstan near Borat's village?

Many? Let's look at the cars made since 2000. What cars barely (subjective so let's say 92mph) can make 90mph? Name 1 car besides maybe the Smart that can't go 80mph? Just 1.

Do you believe a car like that should spend 6+ hours on the interstate/autobahn at that speed?

A SL is a maximum, not a "recommended". On a multi-lane interstate I don't care if you drive 55mph in the right lane to get your maximum fuel economy and feel safe. Or 60mph if you're rushing to the hospital.

I'd also suggest that all garbage-trucks, moving vans, Student drivers, and those above 90 years old stay right. The left-lane or middle lane if there, is for the higher speed traffic.

And if you don't like to drive 55mph with faster traffic on the left, there still are secondary highways where 55mph is the SL and going to the same destination.

kyfdx · November 2008

Krogers has a 10 cent discount, if you have a qualifying amount of grocery purchases, each month..

But, I have the Citi Shell MasterCard. That gives you 5% off gasoline and 1% off everything else, rebated off your balance, the very next month. Currently, that's about 10 cents/gallon, but it was as much as 21 cents/gallon, just a few months ago..

It's the best "rewards" card I've found, because it pays out right away, and it's for something you have to buy anyway..

regards,
kyfdx

dtownfb · November 2008

Great suggestion! Even though gas is down to $2.09 in the York, PA area, I'm always looking to save money.

My wife fills up almost exclusively at Giant foods. They offer discounts on gas depending on how much you spend at the store. Their gas is priced with many of the other gas stations. With some luck and proper shopping, we may be able to fill up for under $1.50 next time.

andres3 · November 2008

The manufacturers test their vehicles, yes, the tires have maximum speed ratings, yes, but the cars are not certified to run at any given speed. There are many cars that if you hold down the gas pedal far enough for long enough, they will go 80 or 90 mph, but at that speed they are running close to flat out. Do you believe a car like that should spend 6+ hours on the interstate/autobahn at that speed?

Yes, that is exactly what manufacturers are doing when they put in electronic speed limiters onto their vehicles (most modern, if not all modern cars have this electronic nanny). Therefore, I'd argue the certified speed is the speed limiters maximum allowed speed by the manufacturer.

lemmer · November 2008

There are many cars that if you hold down the gas pedal far enough for long enough, they will go 80 or 90 mph, but at that speed they are running close to flat out.

Did you write this 30 years ago and forget to update it?

hammerhead · November 2008

One can drive at 80 without driving aggressively - lots of stretches of Interstate in the US are posted at 75. 5 over isn't aggressive - in a lot of places, it's merely keeping up with the flow of traffic.

It's not rude to keep right - it's the law.

euphonium · November 2008

Intimidation may work for your crowd on the docks, but it fails to generate any respect of those who know better.

One should not confuse the silent generation with the greatest generation who knows a lot more about being young than the young know about being older.

The youth are not born with wisdom, it is accumulated with experience and age.

There are old drivers and bold drivers, but no old bold ones. Choice is yours.

euphonium · November 2008

"
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.

I find it sad to see such blind faith manifesting itself into name calling, stereotyping, ridiculing, marginalizing, and all that bluster which essentially is another way of showing that what anyone else has to offer on the subject is worthless...for no other reason than it doesn't support someone's chosen position.

lemmer · November 2008

I didn't notice any intimidation. Also, I know a lot of wise people from "the greatest generation" who are both old and bold and drive 75-80 if not faster. In fact, those speeds seem completely commonplace and safe among almost all age groups.

Fast drivers can be idiots, but that doesn't preclude slow drivers from being the same. If you aren't driving with the flow of traffic, you are the danger whether you are going 95 mph or 55 mph.

lemmer · November 2008

Actually the Smart car can go 90 mph. It is electronically limited to that. It is otherwise capable of higher speeds.

euphonium · November 2008

The implied intimidation is expressed by the last line of the post.

"The slow and backwards will keep right or wish they had.

lemmer · November 2008

I read that comment as meaning it isn't very fun having people run up on your bumper, passing you on the right, having to cut it close to get back in front of you in the left lane. That seems really stressful way to drive for both parties. Wouldn't it be easier just to follow the law and move right? Or better yet, drive with the flow of traffic instead of driving dangerously slow?

fintail · November 2008

Why would one feel intimidated? Does someone know they are in the wrong and are afraid of the consequences? Being tailgated, cut off, provoking a road-rager, embarrassing your passengers, maybe getting pulled over for obstructing traffic...it is something to beware of.

Age is certainly not a determinant of wisdom...plenty of dopey aged people out there. The elderly entitlement set out there should atone for their own sins before pointing to those darn young hooligans

Going 70 isn't bold, unless you are in a Model A

fintail · November 2008

It's simply a good faith rebuttal to the self-righteous arrogance that comes from the south of where I am sitting now and then :P

grbeck · November 2008

cdn_tch: 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.

Most people have figured out that, at higher speeds, vehicles do consume more gasoline. If they choose not to act on this information, that is their concern, not mine. The most productive approach to this sort of question is to not confuse individual whining with a need for a new law.

cdn_tch: Pleasure, yes, I'll agree with that; Convenience, doubtful; Extra safety, no, speed increases risk

We've been through this before; on limited access highways, higher speeds do no correlate to increased risk, and, if anything, faster drivers are safer than slower drivers. Unless we believe that a very limited number of accidents involving drivers who are not necessarily representative of every driver somehow "prove" otherwise.

If speed increased risk, then the death rate per 100 million miles would be skyrocketing; it is not. It is declining, even though people are driving at higher speeds, and have been for several years now.

If you doubt this, you are welcome to accompany me on our next trip, which will involve various interstates in Pennsylvania, so that you will become better informed.

cdn_tch: Comparing 10 mph to 70 mph in this discussion is irrelevant.

It's absolutely relevant, because it shows that more pollutants are emitted at lower speeds, which are more prevelant during stop-and-go driving. If you are really concerned about decreasing pollution, you would be advocating steps to ensure the smooth flow of traffic, not requiring everyone to obey an arbitrary, counterproductive and artificially low speed limit on limited access highways.

cdn_tch: 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.

The increase is negligible for volatile organic compounds (VOCs); it is higher for nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide (from 60-70 mph).

The information can be found here: http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/smog-cars/doe-veh-pollutants.pdf.

Today's vehicles are, if anything, even cleaner than their earlier counterparts. (Note, for example, that for newer vehicles, the increase in pollutants at higher speeds is smaller.) Reducing speeds on limited access highways to reduce air pollution would be even more of a waste of time.

cdn_tch: With 3 Trillion vehicle miles driven, the increase ends up being substantial.

You are making the same mistake that you accused that public service message on the billboard of making. So all three trillion of those vehicle miles are at 75 mph on limited access highways?

Do you really believe this?

The simple fact is that if you want to control pollution, you will, a. target clunkers that generate the most serious pollution, and b. do as much as possible to eliminate stop-and-go driving.

cdn_tch: Yes, unregulated gasoline powered engines do pollute more but that does not make it OK to pollute more with a car.

Except that the intelligent approach to solving these problems requires wisely targeting sources that will give the most bang for the buck.

Given how remarkably clean new vehicles are - a brand-new Ford Explorer emits fewer pollutants running than a brand-new 1969 Ford Galaxie emitted while standing still, with the engine shut off - it is a waste to time to worry about the very small increase in emissions generated by people driving 75 mph as opposed to 55 mph (if such an increase even exists with new vehicles).

Especially since history has shown that people do not slow down for artificially low speed limits on limited access highways anyway, unless we post a police officer at virtually every mile of interstate highway, thus resulting in a serious misallocation of police resources to enforce a dumb, misguided law.

The most productive - not to mention the informed - approach is not to pass the dumb law in the first place.

grbeck · November 2008

kernick: You're kidding right? Please post a link - like Consumer reports stating vehicles are having hazardous lift at 80mph.

I've heard that once you exceed 80 mph, the evil flying monkeys from The Wizard of Oz will descend on your car and flip it over.

euphonium · November 2008

"Wouldn't it be easier just to follow the law and move right?"

When all who just follow the law, including the speed limit, submit to the law, it would be easier, but there are a minority of self consecrated posers who for who knows why, feel they are above the law and regard law enforcement officers as "Revenuers", senior citizens not as worthy to share the road with, & pride themselves with being "precise" as they weave back and forth down I 5.

They blame their act of road rage on other drivers that they don't like, not understanding they make the choice to react in rage.

fintail · November 2008

Why should one who wants everyone else to follow the law not follow the law himself? Those who live in glass houses, or let him who is without sin, etc

Seems one side is at best no more free from sin than the other...

I think the slowpokes get road rage just as much as the speed demons. They'll camp out in the left lane for awhile, then get all upset when someone tailgates/flashes/flips them etc.

I have no problem sharing the road with oldsters, assuming they can grasp lane discipline, and cops are awesome when they speedtrap dangerous areas instead of how they do it here - cherrypicking the inattentive on a wide open 30mph road that should be 40mph, while bandits race up my 30mph street at 80mph every night, without a revenuer (ummm...cop) in sight.

kernick · November 2008

feel they are above the law and regard law enforcement officers as "Revenuers",

Yes that's partly it. But the other reason for atificially low SL's, is so the police have a reason to pull over anyone they don't like the looks of. The local police chiefs have been quoted this in our papers, stating that they sit at the town boundaries and keep potential troublemakers out this way. They set the SL's so low, that ordinary traffic-flow wil be above it.
This is certainly a way around our Rights, not to be unreasonably stopped and searched. The SL is so low they can stop you and search whatever they can can see thru the windows. Having had a black Firebird, I can tell you that the police do this, and when they see you're a middle-aged commuter, they just say - It's a warning, slow down.", "or nice car, I had a Camaro 5 years ago ...". I have never gotten a speeding ticket for going 10 mph over the limit, which is my normal driving, as the cops know that is aceptable and normal, compared to the exceptionally low SL's posted..

euphonium · November 2008

After the Apple Cup, we were in a hurry to get home and were stopped by the SP.

It turned out his stopping us was not for any possible speeding, but for the Saturday night "Sniff test". His parting remark was "Slow it down."

knockster · November 2008

You personally may want to drive at slower speeds for your own reasons, such as fuel efficiency, safety, the law or just plain scared. My time and mood determine how fast I will drive at any given day on the road. If I am time constrained I will drive faster. If I just feel like cruising and taking in the scenery I will drive slower. Being in the military I make several long distance trips a year (400 to 1200 miles) to see freinds and family in different states.
In reality what is going on here is that you don't want to drive faster and you don't like the fact that others are allowed so you make up EXCUSES (I stress that word because thats all they are) why others should have to drive a speed that you pull out of a hat. You hide beind numbers such as 40mpg, 55mph, and use statistics to supposedly prove your point. Actually the numbers of fatal accidents on the highways are low statistically when compared to the number of people on the road.
There is fast driving, there is wreckless driving and there is fast, wreckless driving. The individual driving decides how fast he will navigate the roads and whether or not he will abide by the speed limit. Knowing this you have a choice set by the government to either join the others driving faster or moving to the right lane set aside for slower peeds with a MINIMUM in most states of 40 mph.
So why is it so hard for you to drive in that lane and just let the others pass you by? Instead slower drivers who claim they want slower speed limits for safety in turn help cause accidents on the highway with what is known as road rage. When you get in the middle and left lane and and drive 45 or 55 mph to try to force someone to go slower, you are raising the risk of an accident significantly. You are also breaking the law which states slower traffic keep right so in essence those who do this are nothing more than hypocrites.
The government in my opinion has done the right thing by raising the speed limit and designating the right lane for slower speeds. They also regulate that speed limits be slower in areas where there may be a lot more traffic or pedestrians may be in the road and that is why you see speed limits on the highway range from 55 to 75mph.
It is also my opinion that the idiots driving wrecklessly at slower and/or higher speeds have no regard for thier own life much less anyone elses and should be punished accordingly. These are the people you should be targeting, not the speed limit because they are going to drive wreckless regardless of what the speed limit may be.
As for 55 being better for fuel efficiency, I just don't beleive it. Like I said earlier I travel quite a bit and ALWAYS stop in the same places and at the same amount of miles to refuel regardless of how fast I am driving on that particular trip. I have found that your driving habbits will determine whether or not you get better gas mileage. Things like taking off from a stop more gradual than stomping on the gas pedal, coasting when you don't need to hit the gas, using cruise control and coasting to a stop instead of gassing it until you have to stop.
Safety, like I said the individual determines safety. A person driving 55 can be just as unsafe as a person driving 70. I personally try to keep a good stopping distance from cars in front of me and all to often vehicles driving at slower speeds will use that gap to cut me off to get around an even slower driver or just to try and slow me down. In this scenario it isn't my speed that would have caused an accident but the ignorence of the person cutting me off. Consideration of others on both sides (fast or slow) can make driving a lot safer. Don't drive wreckless, don't be ignorant and be aware at all times and lives will be saved.

fintail · November 2008

Maybe you were going so slow he thought you might be a little tipsy?

Sorry, I couldn't resist :P

andres3 · November 2008

maximum speed recommended by the manufacturer, and no other.

ruking1 · November 2008

Heavens NO !!! One can already legally go 35 mph in a 65 mph zone !!! Why would you want to go any slower?

bubsted55 · November 2008

Has anybody heard about and researched a product called "FUEL SAVER NITRO"?

ronsmith38 · November 2008

This is just another HHO (H2O) scam. Check the Gas Saving Gizmos & Gadgets forum:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.ef04635/

bubsted55 · November 2008

Thanks for sharing!

wwest · December 2008

"Hybrid (gasoline/electric) cars are the answer for now.."

The current crop of FE hybrids (non-0-60MPH hybrids), Prius, Camry, FEH/MMH, Insight, have advantages ONLY in city stop and go driving where braking energy can be converted to "free" fuel. On the hwy they are actually a detriment to FE in comparison to equivalent non-hybrids.

"Why go digging and drilling.."

Maybe because "we" own the resource, PLENTIFUL resource...??

Canada has used Nuclear power for decades...

Yes, and if I were living anywhere near one of those plants, say NYC or NY State, I would be planning my move WEST. Those plants, and MANY ancillary functions, are currently being run with totally OBSOLETE technology, some from the 1960's, PDP-11's, Varian 620i's, and would you believe IBM Series ONE. For the moment they keep those running via purchases off the USED computer market

And now they have a team of RANK amateurs, OPG/COG/QED/L3-MAPPS, designing and building CLONES, EXACTLY CLONES (hopefully) of those legacy products.

To those living in a surrounding area I say...

GOOD LUCK..!!

Not a no-nukes person by any means.

andys120 · December 2008

wwest · December 2008

What would happen if I took one of the flex fuel(***) vehicles and provided, piped, low pressure (VERY low..) NG into the intake manifold, say just downstream of the MAF/IAT sensor..??

Would the engine A/F control computer adjust/lower the gasoline EFI PWM timing , as I think it shoudl/would to take optimal advantage of the artificially ENRICHED mixture...??

*** Assumes a wider parametric mapping range for fuel octane rating.

kernick · December 2008

As far as I know there have not been any major changes in SL, yet we have this wonderful drop in fatalities. Lowest since Lyndon Johnson, so that is even lower than - when the SL was 55mph, and there were a lot less drivers and autos on the road.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-11-auto-deaths_N.htm

ruking1 · December 2008

Indeed !!! In addition in most so called urban/suburban areas(multi lanes in one directions separated) there is a lot more crowding and compression and rules, regulations, exceptions, changes, construction, destruction, and, and, and,.... Most folks live in areas where 75-90 mph is the rule rather than the exception. If you are going 75 mph it is truly advisable to be in either the extreme right to right hand lanes. I routinely am passed by Highway Patrol while going 75 mph. (65 mph zones) These are statistically the SAFEST road ways.

cdn_tch · December 2008

It's great that there has been a drop in fatalities, but what are the reasons for it?

First, there was a 3.5% drop in miles traveled. Original NHTSA paper
Second, seat belt usage rose to 83% in 2008, the highest rate in history.
Third, from From a NHTSA web page "Improved Road Safety"

The above are facts from NHTSA, one speculation from me is with $4+ gas, some people may have actually slowed down to save gas. (not to 55, but maybe to the SL instead of 5-10 over?)

fintail · December 2008

Anecdorally, I don't recall seeing people drive any slower 5 months ago when gas spiked, compared to today. Of course, in my area most people are unfit to drive at more than 50mph, so they go painfully slow when they meander onto the highways.

stever · December 2008

I don't recall seeing people drive any slower

I do, but this isn't a frenzied driving area typically either.

ruking1 · December 2008

I am surprised they did not mention at all the role of app 40% DUI of accidents and fatalities past and how it interrelates during the current 2008 year. Again not a peep about the higher defacto speed limits.

kernick · December 2008

First, there was a 3.5% drop in miles traveled.

But the report said that the fatalities haven't been this low since Lyndon Johnson' days the 60's. So, even during the 70's and 80's when the national SL was 55mph the number of fatalities was higher. And during the 70's and 80's how many cars and how many total miles were driven. So simply having a 55 mph SL is not going to save lives, as you point out in the following:

Second, seat belt usage rose to 83% in 2008, the highest rate in history

Yes and voluntary usage of seatbelts is good if you want to improve your safety. And you also have the voluntary options to add other injury and life-saving equipment. For instance I'm enjoying my new snow/ice tires (and the government didn't have to write a law telling me to be smart!).

Third, from From a NHTSA web page "Improved Road Safety"

Yes road safety is mainly a factor of the improving technology of our vehicles. As more and more vehicle with stability control enter the fleet, and radar systems, the fatality rates will continue to drop.

Now if we could just do something to really keep drunks off the road, and keep inexperienced teens from racing/showing off/and generally fooling around.

These are the sorts of things that improve safety; not telling they need to drive 55mph on an interstate.

ruking1 · December 2008

Indeed the issues are pretty clear.

Higher speed limits ( and defacto) are actually RESULTING in safer highways, aka does NOT result in the projected carnage predicted by the 55 mph and less advocates and fear mongerers: given a host of modifying variables. Now I realize that is not the party line and the conclusion/s are not ones they want to emphasize.

One just has to remember to look to Europe as a baseline. They have 80 mph to NO speed limits and their fatality rate (per capita) is similar to ours. The modifying variables are materially the same.

stever · December 2008

I posted a link a month or three ago that indicated that EU speed limits were very similar to the US ones.

For instance I'm enjoying my new snow/ice tires (and the government didn't have to write a law telling me to be smart!).

Kernick, move just a bit farther north to Quebec and you'll be both smart and legal. :shades:

Quebec prepares to become the first province to make winter tires compulsory (Globe & Mail)

[edit - you still have power Kernick? Sounds like quite the ice storm up there]

ruking1 · December 2008

For sure it depends how you measure it.

So for example point a to b and importantly END DESTINATION to END DESTINATION, believe it or not it is almost impossible to get much over 55 mph AVERAGE. So just because a European has a 55 mph AVERAGE it doesn't mean for example he has not gone 120 mph in achieving that average, nor woujld it necessarily mean an American HAD to go 120 mph, yet still achieve the same AVERAGE..

So again the methodology is all important.

stever · December 2008

No, I mean that with the exception of parts of the Autobahn, most of the EU posted limits are similar to ours.

ruking1 · December 2008

Indeed I would not doubt that for speed limits can actually be posted due to highway engineering standards and more importantly reality.

kernick · December 2008

edit - you still have power Kernick? Sounds like quite the ice storm up there

No, I lost power, but somehow my computer's still working.

I think it's because we're saving our carbon credits, and the spirits of Earf looked kindly on our valley.

Kernick, move just a bit farther north to Quebec and you'll be both smart and legal.

They should also include a ban on white cars in winter, in that legislation!

Much higher accident rate with white cars in the winter. I'd be okay there too - I have a red car.

ruking1 · December 2008

Probably one of the more important metrics lacking in the projected 30,000 fatality count which remarkably is down from a more "normal" 43,000 fatality count is the all important "per capita measurement". However at first look -13,000 fatalities is a wonderful reversal. (normal PC boiler plate observed)

cdn_tch · December 2008

Sorry, but it is not a 13K reversal. The 30,000 fatalities are for the first 9 months of '08 with some incomplete data for October. So the 12 month picture is still in the 40K range.

ruking1 · December 2008

So why did you bring it up in the first place? :lemon: A NON event!

kernick · December 2008

The article states there is a 9.8% drop thru the same period, compared to 2007.

cdn_tch · December 2008

So why did you bring it up in the first place? :lemon: A NON event!

Actually the NHTSA brought it up saying that they expect there to be about a 10% (that would be somewhere around 4,000) drop in highway fatalities.

While in a way it doesn't sound like much, I'm reminded of the Joseph Stalin quote "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic". It is very easy to look at the statistics and not appreciate that for every one of those statistics (40,000+ fatalities), there is a massive tragedy for someone. So every death that can be prevented, should be. Lest you be the one delivering or have delivered to you the sad news that someone you care for is never coming home. :sick:

Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles